Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): leadership enhancement, arguing on appeal that he performed only the functions of a street-level drug dealer, the lowest rung on a drug-conspiracy ladder. Erasto challenges the district court’s application of the section 3B1.4 use of a minor enhancement, arguing on appeal that A.G.’s presence at a drug deal conducted by he and Pedro was not legally sufficient to support that enhancement. Consistent with our circuit precedent in Savillon-Matute and Hargrove, rather than review the merits of each of these challenges, we may proceed directly to an “assumed error harmlessness inquiry.” Hargrove, 701 F.3d at 162. In Savillon-Matute, we held that harmless error review applies to a district court’s procedural sentencing errors made during its Guidelines calculation. 636 F.3d at 123-24 (<HOLDING>). A Guidelines error is considered harmless if 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny quoting turner broad sys inc v fed commcn commn 512 us 622 642 114 sct 2445 129 led2d 497 1994 plurality opinion (B) holding that the rule announced in simmons v south carolina 512 us 154 114 sct 2187 129 led2d 133 1994 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review (C) holding that procedural errors at sentencing  are routinely subject to harmlessness review  quoting puckett v united states 556 us 129 141 129 sct 1423 173 led2d 266 2009 (D) holding on the basis of melendezdiaz v massachusetts  us  129 sct 2527 174 led2d 314 2009 that a certificate of norecord is testimonial (E) recognizing that references to and descriptions of the jurys verdict as advisory as a recommendation and of the judge as the final sentencing authority are permissible under romano v oklahoma 512 us 1 114 sct 2004 129 led2d 1 1994
Output (English): holding on the basis of melendezdiaz v massachusetts  us  129 sct 2527 174 led2d 314 2009 that a certificate of norecord is testimonial