In U.S. v. Robles, No. 04-13598 (May 10, 2005), the Court held that any Booker error in the sentence enhancements based on "relevant conduct" under the Guidelines was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because the district court at sentencing stated that its sentence would be the same if it imposed an alternative sentence under advisory guidelines.
The Court rejected the argument that the error in imposing a Guideline sentence was not harmless because post-Booker a sentencing court could take account of matters not ordinarily relevant, like a defendant’s age. The Court found that the sentencing court’s statements made clear that it did not feel limited in what evidence it could consider. The Court also rejected the argument that the district court could now take account of the factors listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court was "at a loss" to see how these factors could possibly change the result. The court added that it did not expect a sentencing court post-Booker to conduct an accounting of every § 3553(a) factor and expound on its role in its sentencing decision.
