*716 ORDER

This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the record whether the defendants’ sentences remain appropriate now that United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has limited the Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district judge has now replied that he is “uncertain” whether he would have imposed the same sentences based on the existing record; the judge has requested an opportunity to resentence the defendants based on a new sentencing hearing. The government opposes resentencing, arguing that the district court did not unequivocally state in response to the Paladino remand that he would have imposed lesser sentences had he known the Guidelines were advisory. The government asserts that plain error under Paladino is not established unless the district judge advises that he would have been inclined to impose lesser sentences at the time of initial sentencing had he known the Guidelines were advisory.

We have recently rejected this argument as an “unduly narrow view” of the purpose of the Paladino limited remand procedure. United States v. Askew, 417 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2005). In Askew, the district judge responded to this court’s Paladino remand by stating that she was “unable at this time to say” whether she would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme and expressed her “desire to resentence the defendant.” Id. at 649. We broadly interpreted this response as “an affirmative answer to our question whether plain error occurred” and remanded for resentencing. Id.

Askew applies here. Accordingly, we Vacate the defendants’ sentences and Remand this matter to the district court for resentencing.