record [to] suggest[ ] that the district court would have imposed the same or a greater sentence.” Id. at 750. What sentence the district court would have imposed had it considered the guidelines advisory, however, is unknown. As the government states in its brief, “the court declined to say how it would have exercised discretion to sentence defendant without guidelines.” Moreover, the comments of the sentencing judge here that “the defendant and his family enjoyed a lavish lifestyle at the expense of many unsuspecting victims” and that “a sentence in the middle range of the Guidelines would sufficiently punish the defendant and deter others from committing like or similar crimes” are insufficient to say with fair assurance that the statutory Booker error was harmless. Id. at 749-50 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Cain, 433 F.3d
holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines holding that the government could not meet its burden under harmless error analysis because the record indicated that district court would have imposed shorter sentencing under advisory guidelines scheme holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding that defendant should be resentenced where district court imposed a sentence under an erroneously calculated guidelines range  even where the sentence imposed fell within the correct range