ORDER

Benicio Rincon-Alonzo’s appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that he could not discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. We held that we could not determine whether Rincon-Alonzo, who was sentenced before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), had a valid basis for appeal without knowing whether the district court would have given him the same sentence if it had known the guidelines were merely adviso *427 ry. Accordingly, we kept the motion to withdraw under advisement and ordered a limited remand so that the district court could resolve the uncertainty. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir . 2005).

The district court has now responded, and informs us that it would have given Rincon-Alonzo the same sentence. We informed counsel that he would have seven days after the district court’s response to submit any further argument concerning his motion to withdraw, and after the district court issued its response we invited Rincon-Alonzo and the government to file any arguments they might have regarding the disposition of the appeal. No party has responded.

Because the district court would have given Rincon-Alonzo the same sentence had it understood the guidelines to be advisory, his sentence was not in error and he has no nonfiivolous basis for an appeal. Accordingly, we now take up counsel’s motion to withdraw, GRANT the motion and DISMISS this appeal.