Defendant-appellant Jack Thomas was convicted of two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (the second bank robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced Thomas to concurrent terms of 135 months’ imprisonment for each count of bank robbery, followed by a mandatory consecutive term of 84 months’ imprisonment for the § 924(c) count. Thomas appealed, and we affirmed. United States v. Thomas, 105 F. App’x 773, 775 (6th Cir. 2004). Thomas has moved for rehearing, asking that we vacate his sentence and remand to the district court for re-sentencing.

We agree, and the government concedes, that Thomas is entitled to a remand and re-sentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Booker applies to all cases on direct review, id. at 268,125 S.Ct. 738, including cases such as Thomas’s for which a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is pending. At Thomas’s original sentencing hearing, the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, which, after Booker, constitutes plain error. See United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 525-26, 529-30 (6th Cir. 2005). Because there is no clear and specific evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence post- Booker, Thomas’s case must be remanded for the district court to re-sentence him under the procedures set out in Booker. See also United States v. McFalls, 675 F.3d 599, 604-05 (6th Cir. 2012).