had occasion to address whether Kimbrough’s holding applies to crack offenders sentenced under the career offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b), and our own pronouncements on this question have been inconsistent. As the Government points out, in this case we remanded a sentence imposed under the career offender Guideline for resentencing in light of Kimbrough, 534 F.3d at 707. Our decision necessarily assumed, without explicitly deciding, that the holding of Kimbrough applied to sentences under the career offender Guideline. In other cases, decided shortly after our decision in this case, the court held explicitly that offenders sentenced under the career offender Guideline should not be accorded a Kimbrough/Taylor remand. United States v. Harris, 536 F.3d 798, 812-13 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Clanton, 538 F.3d
holding that sentences imposed under the career offender guideline are not eligible for remand under kimbrough and taylor because a sentence under the career offender guideline raises no kimbrough problem holding that a district court is entitled to disagree with the career offender guideline holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines holding that a defendant whose sentence is based on his status as a career offender under  4b11 is not entitled to  3582c2 relief because amendments 706 and 713 do not lower the applicable guideline range for a career offender holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied