§ 3583(e)(3). Again, we disagree. Reasoning from its Sixth Amendment holding in Apprendi, the Supreme Court in Booker held that, in so far as the federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, they were unconstitutional. 543 U.S. at 230-31, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738. The Court remedied that infirmity by making the Guidelines advisory. See id. at 258-59, 125 S.Ct. 738 (severing and excising their mandatory provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(b)(1), 3742(e)). Subsequently, in Ameline, this court recognized that, in addition to the constitutional error directly addressed in Booker, nonconstitutional plain error exists in every case where a se Cir.2005) (concluding the supervised release revocation scheme “remains unaffected by Booker ”); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116-117 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Coleman, 404 F.3d 1103, 1104
holding that because revocation is discretionary bookers sixth amendment concerns do not exist with regard to sentences imposed when supervised release is revoked holding that supervised release sentences are normally reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that due process clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release