
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Steven BERTUGLIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-1806.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 4, 2015.
    Philip L. Weinstein, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Charles N. Rose, Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorneys (for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellees.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Steven Bertuglia appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.), sentencing him to concurrent terms of 180 months’ imprisonment for two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Bertuglia’s only argument on appeal is that the district court erred in classifying him as a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines, over Bertuglia’s timely objection. We need not consider this argument, because, the district court explained repeatedly that the disputed classification made no difference to the sentence imposed:

[E]ven if the guideline range were different, because of the career offender provision, ... I would impose the exact same sentence. So even if the Second Circuit were to determine that this burglary was not a crime of violence, ... I would impose the exact same sentence in this case, the 15 year sentence, because I believe that this defendant is someone, based upon his history, [for whom] that sentence is necessary to achieve all the factors of sentencing, based upon the reasons that I’ve already given. So even if his guideline range were the 70 to 87 months, I’d give him the same sentence as the non-guideline sentence of 15 years for all the reasons I’ve given.

Sentencing Tr. at 19-20.

“[Guideline disputes that would not have affected the ultimate sentence need not be adjudicated on appeal.” United States v. Shuster, 331 F.3d 294, 296 (2d Cir.2003); see also United States v. Borrego, 388 F.3d 66, 69 (2d Cir.2004) (“[T]o require the court to rule on issues which would have no effect on the sentence would merely require performance of a meaningless academic exercise.”). Because the district court could have — and would have — imposed the same sentence, even without the career offender enhancement, there is nothing for us to decide on appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . There is a circuit split on the question' whether burglary of a non-residential building qualifies as a per se "crime of violence” under the career offender guideline. Compare United States v. Brown, 514 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.1996), with United States v. Giggey, 551 F.3d 27 (1st Cir.2008) (en banc), United States v. Matthews, 374 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Hoults, 240 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Wilson, 168 F.3d 916 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Harrison, 58 F.3d 115 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Spell, 44 F.3d 936 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Jackson, 22 F.3d 583 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Smith, 10 F.3d 724 (10th Cir.1993). As the split arises from different readings of the career offender guideline, the United States Sentencing Commission is well situated to resolve it by clarifying whether nonresidential burglary qualifies as a "crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a)(2).
     