Fascinating Booker review ruling from the Eleventh Circuit

Contributing to a day with lots of interesting reads, the Eleventh Circuit has a fascinating little reasonableness opinion in US v. Keene, 06-12076 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2006) (available here).  In Keene, the court avoids resolving a disputed guidelines issue because the district judge declared that he would impose the same sentence regardless of how the issue would be resolved.  The Keene court in turn assumes the guidelines were calculated wrong and then find the (above-range) sentence still reasonable.  Here is how the action in Keene wraps up:

[W]e conclude that if there was any misapplication of the §2B3.1(b)(2)(F) enhancement, “the error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.”  Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992).  Put a little differently, it would make no sense to set aside this reasonable sentence and send the case back to the district court since it has already told us that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence we would be compelled to affirm.