context: The Supreme Court has stated that an error is harmless when the error "did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed." On the other hand, when we are not certain that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence had it not committed a procedural error, we have declined to find the error harmless.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 578 F.3d 695, 695-96
citation_a.parenthetical: remanding for resentencing where district court committed procedural error by failing to calculate advisory guideline range for supervised release term
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515, 528 (7th Cir.2009) (remanding for resentencing where district court’s statements did “not approach the firm assurances that we had in the cases where we have found a sentencing error harmless”); United States v. Edwards, 581 F.3d 604, 613 (7th Cir.2009) (remanding for a further sentencing hearing where it was unclear whether a procedural error had occurred that affected the choice of sentence); see also Gibbs, 578 F.3d at 695-96 (remanding for resentencing where district court committed procedural error by failing to calculate advisory guideline range for supervised release term).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 581 F.3d 604, 613
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding for a further sentencing hearing where it was unclear whether a procedural error had occurred that affected the choice of sentence
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515, 528 (7th Cir.2009) (remanding for resentencing where district court’s statements did “not approach the firm assurances that we had in the cases where we have found a sentencing error harmless”); United States v. Edwards, 581 F.3d 604, 613 (7th Cir.2009) (remanding for a further sentencing hearing where it was unclear whether a procedural error had occurred that affected the choice of sentence); see also Gibbs, 578 F.3d at 695-96 (remanding for resentencing where district court committed procedural error by failing to calculate advisory guideline range for supervised release term).