
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel MONSIVAIS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-15276.
    D.C. Docket No. 04-00053-CR-3-RV-001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 14, 2005.
    Gwendolyn L. Spivey, Federal Defender Office, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, Thomas S. Keith, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Thomas P. Swaim, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and JORDAN, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Adalberto Jordan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the sentence he received — imprisonment for sixty-four months — after pleading guilty to illegal entry into the United States after deportation. At sentencing, appellant, citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), objected to being sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines on the ground that the Guidelines were unconstitutional. The district court overruled his objection, concluding (properly so at the time) that Blakely’s holding did not apply to the federal sentencing scheme, and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), however, the Supreme Court made its Blakely holding applicable to sentencing under the Guidelines; hence, we review appellant’s sentence under Bookers holdings.

In treating the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory (as Booker requires), the district court, in sentencing appellant, committed statutory error. The question we must decide is whether the error is harmless.

A statutory Booker error is harmless if, “viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the [sentence], ‘or had but very slight effect.’ If one can say ‘with fair assurance ... that the [sentence] was not substantially swayed by the error,’ the [sentence] is due to be affirmed even though there was error.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2005).

After examining the sentencing record in this case, we cannot say that the error was harmless. The district court gave no indication of the sentence it would have imposed had it treated the Guidelines as advisory, nor did it indicate the weight it would have given the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A),(B),(C), and (D) in fashioning appellant’s sentence. We therefore vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the case for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.  