Staten

ORDER

The opinion filed June 7, 2006, slip. op. 6211, and published at 450 F.3d 384 (9th Cir.2006) is hereby amended as follows:

No petitions for rehearing will be entertained.

OPINION

United States v. Booker held that although district courts are no longer required to follow the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), when making sentencing decisions, “the [Sentencing Reform] Act nonetheless requires judges to take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals.” 543 U.S. 220, 259 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (a) (Supp.2004)); see also United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1278 (9th Cir.2006) (“[Notwithstanding that the Guidelines are now effectively advisory, ... district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, ‘should still consult them for advice as to the appropriate sentence.’ ” (citation omitted)). Concomitantly, as we have repeatedly held in the aftermath of Booker; we continue to have a duty to review district courts’ required application of the Guidelines. We do so to assure that the district courts properly appreciate the advice offered by the now-advisory Guidelines before factoring…