KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Because I believe that Turner did not unambiguously waive the right to challenge his sentence on the basis of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), I respectfully dissent. Turner’s plea agreement includes the following provision: “The defendant agrees to waive any challenge to the validity of the Sentencing Guidelines.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 22-23 (Plea Agreement 1112) (emphasis added). Turner does not challenge the validity of the Guidelines; instead, he simply argues that the district court erred by treating the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory. In fact, Turner explicitly acknowledges that the Guidelines are valid and must be considered at sentencing. Appellant’s Br. at 17 (<HOLDING>). It is clear, then, that what Turner
holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in  3553a holding sentencing under the acca not to be a booker error recognizing that under booker judges should continue to take account of the guidelines together with other sentencing goals  and a sentencing court must at least consider the guidelines in fashioning a sentence quoting booker 125 sct at 764