Whether a district court's statement asserting it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any potential procedural error renders that error harmless and precludes meaningful appellate review

This Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of properly calculating the Guidelines range . Calculating the applicable Guidelines range is the first step for a district court at sentencing. Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530, 536 (2013) . Courts work towards nationwide consistency in sentencing by making the range the “starting point and initial benchmark .” Id. Having a properly calculated range is so important that it is also the first step an appellate court must take: it must ensure “ the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly c alculating) the Guidelines range .” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) . However, the Circuits are divided on whether a district court can prevent appellate review of its G uideline s calculation by stating, regardless of the proper range, it would have imposed the same sentence. The Eighth Circuit falls on the minority side and has repeatedly skipped this crucial step because of a simple statement made by a district court. The question presented is: Whether a district court’s statement, asserting it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any potential procedural error , renders that error harmless and precludes meaningful appellate review. ii INTERESTED PARTIES All parties are named in the case caption.