Whether the Court of Appeals improperly allowed district courts to nullify sentencing guidelines through inoculating statements that latent errors would not affect sentencing

Whether the Court of Appeals opinion is in direct contravention of this Court's holdings in Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530, 541 (2013); and Rosales-Mireles v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1897 .(2018), when it allowed the district court to nullify the guidelines by way of a simple assertion that any latent errors in the guidelines calculation would make no difference to the choice of sentence? Such inoculating statements cannot override Section 3553(a) (4)(A), or this Court's holdings in Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338 (2007); Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 (2007); Peugh v,' United States , 569 U.S. 530 (2013); and Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct.1. 1897 (2018) Whether, should this Court find that district court's can use inoculating statements, such as "if there are any errors in the guidelines calculations it would make no difference to the choice of the sentence," to nullify the use of the guidelines, is there a criteria to ensure the court is midful of the guidelines in imposing it's sentence?2.