context: Even so, I do not believe that a simple statement that the court would have imposed the same sentence is sufficient, at least where the imposed sentence exceeds what would have been the Guidelines range absent the procedural error. The district court's explanation fails to distinguish its reasons for a within-Guidelines sentence from those for an above-Guidelines sentence, and thus fails to provide the necessary certainty to know it would have imposed the same sentence.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 522 F.3d 1108, 1117
citation_a.parenthetical: "Indeed, it is hard for us to imagine a case where it would be procedurally reasonable for a district court to announce that the same sentence would apply even if. correct guidelines calculations are so substantially different, without cogent explanation."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381, 389 (3d Cir.2013) (“Though probative of harmless error, [a statement that the court would have imposed the same sentence] will not always suffice to show that an error in calculating the Guidelines range is harmless; indeed, a district court still must explain its reasons for imposing the sentence under either Guidelines range.”); United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir.2009) (Guidelines error harmless because district court’s alternative sentence provided “detailed explanation of the basis for the parallel result”); see also United States v. Peña-Hermosillo, 522 F.3d 1108, 1117 (10th cir.2008) (“Indeed, it is hard for us to imagine a case where it would be procedurally reasonable for a district court to announce that the same sentence would apply even if. correct guidelines calculations are so substantially different, without cogent explanation.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 560 F.3d 660, 667
citation_b.parenthetical: Guidelines error harmless because district court's alternative sentence provided "detailed explanation of the basis for the parallel result"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381, 389 (3d Cir.2013) (“Though probative of harmless error, [a statement that the court would have imposed the same sentence] will not always suffice to show that an error in calculating the Guidelines range is harmless; indeed, a district court still must explain its reasons for imposing the sentence under either Guidelines range.”); United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir.2009) (Guidelines error harmless because district court’s alternative sentence provided “detailed explanation of the basis for the parallel result”); see also United States v. Peña-Hermosillo, 522 F.3d 1108, 1117 (10th cir.2008) (“Indeed, it is hard for us to imagine a case where it would be procedurally reasonable for a district court to announce that the same sentence would apply even if. correct guidelines calculations are so substantially different, without cogent explanation.”).