Opinion ID: 186717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Samuel Carson, William Sweeney, Sean Coates.

Text: 161 No review of the record on remand is needed to know with certainty that Carson, Coates, and Sweeney would not have received materially different and more favorable sentences under Booker than those imposed by the trial court before Booker. VICAR itself imposes a mandatory life sentence quite apart from anything required by the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). 44 The district court, ruling before Booker, mistakenly applied the Guidelines as if they were mandatory and sentenced Carson, Coates, and Sweeney each to multiple concurrent life sentences for their convictions of murder in the aid of racketeering. That was a mistake without consequence. No remand is needed because its inevitable outcome would be the imposition (again) of life sentences, only this time required by the mandatory language of VICAR instead of the Guidelines. See id. 162 Under Coles, a remand is inappropriate in those cases in which a statute requires the imposition of a sentence that is not materially different and more favorable than the sentence announced by the trial court under a mistakenly mandatory application of the Guidelines. In assessing whether a district court committed prejudicial error under Booker, an appellate court must determine what the sentencing court would have done had it not committed the error. Coles, 403 F.3d at 768. Here, had the district court not erred by treating the Guidelines as mandatory, it would have still been without discretion to do anything other than impose a life sentence on each of the appellants under VICAR. Because we are confident that the sentence would not have been lower for Carson, Coates, or Sweeney, we affirm their sentences without remand. See Gomez, 431 F.3d at 824. 45 163