district courts could have made both a constitutional and a statutory error in sentencing defendants pre-Booker. Mahernia, 409 F.3d at -, slip op. at 2328. “The constitutional error is the use of extra-verdict enhancements to reach a guidelines result that is binding on the sentencing judge.” Id. “The statutory error occurs when the district court sentences a defendant under a mandatory guidelines scheme, even in the absence of a Sixth Amendment enhancement violation.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Hardson properly preserved her Booker error claim by citing Blakely in her presentencing motion to declare the Federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional and in her arguments at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Mahernia, 409 F.3d 1289, -, slip op. at 2328 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We review a defendant’s preserved
holding blakely not retroactive holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection holding that appellant properly preserved booker error claim by citing blakely in his written objection to the psi and reminding the court at sentencing of his blakely objection holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing