Johnny Jacobs appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to make and pass counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. He argues that the district court miscalculated his sentencing guideline range in relying on U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 rather than § 2B1.1 to determine the base offense level. He contends that his scheme involved a mere alteration of instruments and not counter- r, ... , . , . , . „ feitmg, which requires making or manufac- .... tt turmg the instrument m its entirety. He ¿i j. e m-»!-1 t , , reasons that § 2B5.1 applies only to coun- , „ „„ TT . . , ,, , terfeitmg offenses. He acknowledges that ,, . , , , .. . . this court has not addressed the issue.

, The government responds that, even if § 2B5.1 was improperly applied, the court could have increased* Jacob’s offense level, because the offense involved sophisticated means. The application of the sophisticated-means enhancement would require a factual determination, because this court cannot make the initial determination of the enhancement’s application. See United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 882 (5th Cir. 1991).

Under the advisory sentencing guidelines, we review sentences for reasonableness in light of the considerations in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). Reasonableness review entails an abuse-of-discretion standard that applies regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside the guideline range. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

In Gall, the Court set out a bifurcated process for reasonableness review. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, the appellate court must ensure that the sentencinS court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (°r imProperly calculating) the Guidelines ranSe> treatinS the Guidelines as mandato- ^ failinS to consider the § 3553(a) fac' tors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts’ or failinS to adequately exPlain the chosen sentence-including an exPlanatíon for any deviation ñ>om the Guidelines range.” Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. If the district courts decision is procedur- „ , „„ „ ^ , ,, ally sound, the appellate court should ,, ’ f , then consider the substantive reasonable- ,, , . , ness of the sentence imposed under an , .... , . . „ r. abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

Although this court has not decided whether § 2BU or § ^5.1 applies where an offense invoives sprinting higher denominations on bills that have been bleached) it is not necessary to resolve that in thig case_ In United States v. Bonilla 524 F 3d 647) 655.57 (5th Cir. 2008), a post GaU case> tMg eomt determmed that the district court had erred in applying the but it decided that “[n]ot all errors ¡n determining a defendant’s guideline sentence require reversal.” We affilmed on the ground that “because the district court imposed an alternative non-guideline sentence, the advisory sentence did not result from the guideline error and we need not vacate the sentence on that basis.” Id. at 659.

The district court made it obvious that would have imposed the same sen. tence eyen if § 2BL1 were appiicabie. The courj,s comments reflect that, like the dMrict ^ in Ma> ft imposed an alternative non-guideline sentence. Thus, even if there were an error in the application of the guidelines, it does not require reversal.

*339 Jacobs further argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court gave inappropriate weight to only-one factor, his prior violent conduct, which he contends was an unsupported finding. After reviewing Jacobs’s criminal history, the court noted that he was a “very violent man” and “a danger to other people.” The court further stated, however, that it had reviewed the § 3553(a) factors and had determined that the thirty-month sentence met the interest of justice.

The sentence imposed does not reflect an abuse of discretion and is reasonable. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. The judgment is AFFIRMED.