Whether a sentencing court's statement that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines creates a per se rule that a miscalculated Guidelines range did not affect the court's ultimate sentencing decision

QUESTION PRESENTED In Molina-Martinez, this Court held that an erroneous Guidelines calculation “set[s] the wrong framework for the sentencing proceeding,” and is enough standing alone “to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016). A number of circuits have subsequently held that a court must vacate and set aside a sentence based on a miscalculated Guidelines range even when the sentencing court states it would have imposed the same sentence absent the Guidelines when the record indicates the erroneously calculated Guidelines may have factored into the court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit, in sharp contrast, concluded that a defendant cannot show he was prejudiced by the error in those circumstances no matter how heavily the court relied on the Guidelines elsewhere in its sentencing colloquy. The questioned presented is: Whether a sentencing court’s statement that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines creates a per se rule that a miscalculated Guidelines range did not affect the court’s ultimate sentencing decision.