argument the government may make on remand based on the felony kidnapping conviction. The government concedes that the District Court erred by making a judicial finding that Guzman-Flores’s prior conviction pre-dated his deportation. The government argues, however, that uncontro-verted evidence later established that Guzman-Flores’s deportation occurred on August 6, 1999, after his prior conviction, and the District Court’s error was therefore harmless. We review this issue de novo, see United States v. Smith, 390 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.2004) (“We ... review de novo whether the district court violated the constitutional rule articulated in Ap-prendi”), and we agree that the District Court’s error was harmless, see United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The sentence is VACATED. REMANDED for
holding that the test for harmless error is whether in the mind of the average juror the prosecutions case would have been significantly less persuasive had the improper evidence been excluded citations and internal quotation marks omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted