Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Law §§ 70.00, 70.70. Therefore, even after Simmons, Foreman’s conviction may qualify as a predicate offense. We note, however, that the information in the PSR is very limited about the conviction. Nonetheless, we conclude, that even if the conviction no longer qualifies under § 851, there is no indication in the record that the district court’s sentencing decision was affected by the enhanced statutory minimum sentence of 120 months. The lowest end of the Guidelines range exceeded the statutory minimum and the court expressed its desire to sentence Foreman in the mid-range, and subsequently did so. Therefore, any procedural sentencing error would be harmless. See United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 454, 181 L.Ed.2d 297 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, on the record before the Court, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds (B) holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines (C) recognizing our authority to affirm sentence despite procedural error where record clearly reveals that court would have reached same result and sentence is substantively reasonable (D) holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted (E) holding procedural error is harmless where the court would have reached the same result had the guidelines issue been decided the other way and the sentence imposed would be reasonable even if contested issue decided in defendants favor
Output (English): holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines