EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Tony Buonocore (“Defendant”) was charged in a two-count indictment with knowingly and intentionally distributing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that they would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). Defendant entered into an agreement with the government to plead guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the other count. At the change of plea hearing, the district court characterized Defendant’s guilty plea as an Alford plea or a plea of nolo contendere because Defendant refused to admit an element of the offense. Pursuant to its general policy against such pleas, the district court rejected Defendant’s plea. Defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on both counts. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the district court’s rejection of his plea and its refusal to give the “innocent merchant” jury instruction requested by Defendant. In addition, Defendant argues he is entitled to resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we AFFIRM the judgment and sentence of the district court.
BACKGROUND
Defendant owns a company that was a licensed distributor of ephedrine and pseu-doephedrine products. Terry Long, the owner of several tobacco and convenience stores, was one of Buonocore’s customers. In May 2001, with Long’s assistance as an informánt, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) arranged a controlled purchase of ephedrine and pseu-doephedrine products from Defendant. In the audio-recorded transaction of the controlled purchase, Long said to Defendant that “the meth cooks must be cookin like crazy,” and “I must have had a run, there’s a bunch of meth cooks in town, that’s what their [sic] using them for so ...”
Based on this controlled purchase, Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with knowingly and intentionally distributing ephedrine (Count I) and pseu-doephedrine (Count II) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that they would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2).1 Before trial, Defendant [1127]*1127agreed to plead guilty to Count I in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss Count II and recommend a sentence of probation only.
At the outset of the change of plea hearing, the district court advised Defendant that it would not accept the plea if Defendant would not admit guilt. Defense counsel indicated that this would not be a problem. Later, the court went through the elements of the offense with Defendant to determine the factual basis of the plea. The court asked Defendant, “Did you know that that ephedrine was going to be used in the manufacture by someone of methamphetamine?” Defendant responded, “No, I didn’t, Your Honor.”
Defense counsel then objected, “I think if the court will allow, I think under the Supreme Court decision — .” The court interrupted, “I do not accept Alfred [sic] pleas. That’s what I told you at the beginning. I don’t accept them. I don’t accept Alfreds [sic]. I don’t accept nolos. I cannot do this. You must admit intent. I simply do not, nor will I. And I know the Supreme Court allows me to do it. It’s disfavored, and I see no reason in this case to do that.” The court rejected Defendant’s plea and set the case for trial.
Defendant filed a written objection, arguing that the court abused its discretion by rejecting Defendant’s plea pursuant to its policy against Alford and nolo pleas. The district court overruled Defendant’s objection, affirming its denial of Defendant’s plea. Defendant was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 97 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release. Defendant timely filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
1. Rejection of Defendant’s Plea
A district court’s decision to reject a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Young, 45 F.3d 1405, 1414 (10th Cir.1995).
Defendant argues that he was prepared to admit his guilt at the change of plea hearing but that the district court, because of its misunderstanding of the applicable statute, mis-characterized Defendant’s intended guilty plea either as an Alford plea or as a plea of nolo contendere'.2 In the alternative, Defendant argues that even if the district court properly characterized his plea as an Alford or nolo plea, the [1128]*1128court abused its discretion by rejecting that plea pursuant to its policy against such pleas. We address each argument in turn.
A. Characterization of Defendant’s Plea as an Alford Plea or a Plea of Nolo Contendere
Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), it is unlawful knowingly or intentionally to “possess[ ] or distributee ] a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance.... ” 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (emphasis added). At the change of plea hearing, the district court asked Defendant only whether he “knew” that the products he was selling would be used to manufacture methamphetamine and did not ask him whether he “had reasonable cause to believe” that the products would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. When Defendant denied that he “knew” that the products would be used to manufacture methamphetamine,- the district court immediately rejected his plea, characterizing it as an Alford or nolo plea.
Defendant now argues that he was prepared to admit that he “had reasonable cause to believe” that the products he sold would be used to manufacture methamphetamine but that the district court, by prematurely terminating the plea colloquy, did not allow him to admit his guilt and thus mis-characterized his plea as an Alford or nolo plea.
In general, this court will not consider a theory on appeal not raised or ruled on below. See Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 104 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (10th Cir.1997). Defendant failed to object to the district court’s rejection of his plea on the basis that the court, due to its premature termination of the plea colloquy, mis-characterized Defendant’s plea as an Alford or nolo plea. To the contrary, Defendant expressly admitted that he intended to offer an Alford or nolo plea and objected only on the ground that the district court’s general policy against such pleas was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Specifically, in his written objection following the change of plea hearing Defendant said, “Because the Defendant would not ‘admit’ guilt but rather was only willing to accept punishment for the alleged crime, the court required him to try the matter.” Accordingly, the district court had no notice of Defendant’s current objection and was therefore unable to make a ruling or take corrective action based on that objection.
Attempting to avoid a finding of waiver, Defendant points out that at the beginning of the change of plea hearing he put the court on notice that he intended to admit guilt and that this notice should serve as an objection that preserves his argument for appeal. However, at the beginning of the change of plea hearing, the court instructed the parties that it would not accept a plea of nolo contendere, that Defendant would be required to admit guilt. Defense counsel responded that this would not be a problem. Thus Defendant’s placing the court on notice that he intended to admit guilt does not remedy Defendant’s failure to object to the district court's alleged misunderstanding of the later plea colloquy, which is the basis of Defendant’s current objection.
Because Defendant failed to raise this issue below, we review the dis-' [1129]*1129triet court’s action for plain error only. See United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir.2003). Under the plain error standard of review, we may exercise our discretion to reverse (1) error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).
Defendant has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred in characterizing his plea as an Alford or nolo plea. Defendant acknowledged in his written objection that “Defendant would not ‘admit’ guilt but rather was only willing to accept punishment for the alleged crime,” and then argued that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to accept any plea accompanied by a protestation of innocence. Defendant’s objection demonstrates that he did not intend to admit his guilt regardless of the questions the district court asked him, but instead planned to offer an Alford or nolo plea. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in characterizing Defendant’s plea as an Alford or nolo plea.
B. Rejection of Defendant’s Alford Plea or Plea of Nolo Contendere
Defendant argues in the alternative that, even if the district court properly characterized Defendant’s plea as an Alford or nolo plea, the district court abused its discretion by rejecting the plea pursuant to the court’s general policy against such pleas.
The Supreme Court has held that a district court may accept a plea of guilty even if that plea is accompanied by protestations of innocence. In North Carolina v. Alford, the trial court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea even though the defendant maintained his innocence as he offered the plea. See 400 U.S. 25, 28-29, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). The defendant then sought post-conviction relief on the basis that his plea was involuntary because he pled guilty only to avoid the death penalty. See id. at 29-30, 91 S.Ct. 160. The Supreme Court equated the plea offered by the defendant to a plea of nolo contendere, see id. at 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, and held that when there is a strong factual basis for the plea, it is not unconstitutional for a court to accept a guilty plea despite the defendant’s professed belief in his innocence, see id. at 38, 91 S.Ct. 160.
The Court noted that “[o]ur holding does not mean that a trial judge must accept every constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes so to plead.” Id. at 38 n. 11, 91 S.Ct. 160. The-Court then stated that
[a] criminal defendant does not have an absolute right under the Constitution to have his guilty plea accepted by the court, although the States may by statute or otherwise confer such a right. Likewise, the States may bar their courts from accepting guilty pleas from any defendants who assert their innocence.
Id. (internal citation omitted). The Court further noted that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gives federal district judges discretion to refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and stated that “[w]e need not now delineate the scope of that discretion.” Id. Accordingly, the question left open by Alford is whether the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure limit a district court’s discretion to reject Alford or nolo pleas.
When a defendant offers an Alford plea (i.e., a guilty plea accompanied by [1130]*1130protestations of innocence), the proper procedure is to treat the plea as a plea of nolo contendere. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory committee’s note (1974). Rule 11 provides that a defendant may plead nolo contendere only “with the court’s consent.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(1). “Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties’ views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(3).
Rule 11 is silent with respect to what, if anything, the court must consider before rejecting a plea of nolo contendere. See id. According to the Advisory Committee:
The defendant who asserts his innocence while pleading guilty or nolo contendere is often difficult to deal with in a correctional setting, and it may therefore be preferable to resolve the issue of guilt or innocence at the trial stage rather than leaving that issue unresolved, thus complicating subsequent correctional decisions. The rule is intended to make clear that a judge may reject a plea of nolo contendere and require the defendant either to. plead not guilty or to plead guilty under circumstances in which the judge is able to determine that the defendant is in fact guilty of the crime to which he is pleading guilty.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory committee’s note (1974). As this note demonstrates, the Advisory Committee recognized the difficulties inherent in the acceptance of nolo pleas3 and appears to vest discretion in the district court to adopt a policy requiring a defendant either to admit guilt or to plead not guilty. See id. In short, Rule 11 appears to sanction, and perhaps even encourage, the policy employed by the district court in this case. .
We have not yet taken a position on the issue presented in this case, but we have recognized the district court’s broad discretion in determining whether to accept a plea of nolo contendere. In United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59 (10th Cir.1971), the defendant wished to plead nolo contendere, but the district court said, “If Mr. Soltow wants to change his plea, he may do so, but I’ll not accept a nolo contendere plea. I see nothing unusual in this ease from the hundreds of others that come through the Court all the time.” Id. at 60-61 & n. 1 (quotations omitted). We held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept that plea and requiring the defendant either to plead guilty or go to trial. See id. at 61. We noted that “ ‘[i]t is not necessary to decide whether a refusal to accept a plea of nolo contendere under certain circumstances may constitute an abuse of discretion. All the cases hold that the trial court is vested with a broad discretion in determining whether a [1131]*1131plea of nolo contendere shall be accepted.’ ” Id. (quoting Mason v. United States, 250 F.2d 704, 706 (10th Cir.1957)).
In United States v. Young, 45 F.3d 1405 (10th Cir.1995), we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a guilty plea when the defendant refused to admit the intent element of the crime. See id. at 1413-14. We noted that “[ajlthough a defendant may in some circumstances plead guilty without admitting all the elements of the offense, see Alford, those circumstances are not presented here.” Id. at 1414. Presumably, the “circumstances” to which we referred in Young included the existence of a strong factual basis for the plea. Nevertheless, we did not indicate in Young that a district court would abuse its discretion in rejecting an Alford plea even under such circumstances. See id.
Other courts of appeals have held that a district court may reject a plea of guilty or nolo contendere solely on the basis that the defendant refused to acknowledge his guilt. See United States v. Gomez-Gomez, 822 F.2d 1008, 1011 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. O’Brien, 601 F.2d 1067, 1069-70 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Dorman, 496 F.2d 438, 440 (4th Cir.1974). In addition, although it did not decide the issue, the Seventh Circuit noted that “it seems at least arguable that the acceptance of a nolo plea is so broadly a matter of discretion that a judge’s adoption of a policy against such a plea is itself within his discretion.... ” United States v. Gratton, 525 F.2d 1161, 1163 (7th Cir.1975). Cf. United States v. Cepeda Penes, 577 F.2d 754, 756 (1st Cir.1978) (“[Acceptance of a nolo plea is solely a' matter of grace.... ”).
Secondary sources also provide support for the proposition that a district court has discretion to reject Alford or nolo pleas based on a general policy against such pleas. According to Wright and Miller, “the court is not required to accept a guilty plea from one who asserts he is innocent.” 1A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller; Federal Practice and Procedure, § 174, at 201-02 (3d ed.1999). “It is discretionary with the court whether to accept the plea and it is wholly unlikely that refusal to accept the plea would be regarded as error on appeal.” Id. § 177, at 294. According to the American Law Reports:
One of the most important characteristics of the plea of nolo contendere, which distinguishes it fundamentally from the plea of guilty to which it is so frequently linked by the courts, is that its acceptance by the court is not a matter of right of the defendant but is entirely within the discretion of the court.
All the later cases support the proposition that the plea of nolo contendere cannot be entered by the defendant as a matter of right but is pleadable only by leave of court, its acceptance by the court being entirely a matter of grace.
89 A.L.R.2d 540, § ■ 14 (emphasis added).
Relying on the broad discretion that Rule 11 affords district courts in rejecting Alford and nolo pleas, we hold that a district court’s adoption of a general policy against Alford or nolo pleas is permissible. In this case, then, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Defendant’s plea pursuant to such a policy.
II. “Innocent Merchant” Jury Instruction
We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether, as a whole, the [1132]*1132instructions correctly state the governing law and provide the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards. See United States v. Fredette, 315 F.3d 1235, 1240 (10th Cir.2003). “The instructions as a whole need not be flawless, but we must be satisfied that, upon hearing the instructions, the jury understood the issues to be resolved and its duty to resolve them.” Id. (quotations omitted). While we review the instructions as a whole de novo, the district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id. at 1241.
Defendant in this case requested the following jury instruction:
A legitimate merchant who sells innocuous items need make no judgment about the purpose of the buyer based upon the surrounding circumstances. The dealer, on the other hand, who sells innocuous items with the intent that they be used [unlawfully], is, in effect, put on notice by the illicit nature of his activity that he must be careful to conform his conduct to the law. Even an illicit dealer, however, is not to be held legally responsible for guessing what is in the mind of the buyer. The seller is safe as long as he does not actually know the buyer’s purpose and as long as the objective facts that are there for him to observe do not give fair notice that illegal use will ensue.
The proposed instruction is a passage extracted from Delaware Accessories Trade Ass’n v. Gebelein, 497 F.Supp. 289, 294 (D.Del.1980). In Gebelein, the district court considered the constitutionality of a Delaware statute, patterned after the DEA’s Model Drug Paraphernalia Act, that made it unlawful to “deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with the intent to deliver, drug paraphernalia, knowing, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know, that it will be used to violate drug laws.” Id. at 290, 293 (quotations omitted). The plaintiffs challenged the act on the basis that the inclusion of a constructive knowledge standard (“reasonably should know”) rendered the act unconstitutionally vague. See id. at 293-94.
In rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument, the district court in Gebelein stated that the statute includes two mens rea prongs that must both be satisfied: “(1) that the defendant intended that an item would be used for the production or consumption of controlled, substances and also (2) that he either knew, or that he acted in a set of circumstances from which a reasonable person would know, that the buyer of the item would thereafter use it for those purposes.” Id. at 294. The first mens rea prong is derived from the definition of “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as products or materials “used, intended for use, or designed for use” in producing or consuming controlled substances. Id. at 291 (quotations omitted); see also New England Accessories Trade Ass’n v. Tierney, 691 F.2d 35, 36-37 (1st Cir.1982) (interpreting Maine Drug Paraphernalia Act, also patterned after DEA’s Model Drug Paraphernalia Act). In the passage of the Gebelein opinion extracted by Defendant, the court was explaining the interplay between these two mens rea prongs. See 497 F.Supp. at 294.
For two reasons, application of this passage from Gebelein to this case in the form of a jury instruction would have been inappropriate. First, it would have thrown wholly undefined terms at the jury. The jury would have needed to know what is a “legitimate merchant” and what is an [1133]*1133“innocuous item.” Having failed to define these terms, the instruction would have done little more than generate confusion.
Second, and more importantly, the mens rea element of § 841(c)(2), the statute under which Defendant in this case was convicted, differs in relevant part from the mens rea element of the act at issue in Gebelein. Thus, the Gebelein court’s discussion of the interplay between the two mens rea requirements is not an accurate statement of the law of § 841(c)(2). See United States v. Saffo, 227 F.3d 1260, 1269 n. 7 (10th Cir.2000) (contrasting what is now § 841(c)(2) with a law based on the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act at issue in Kansas Retail Trade Coop. v. Stephan, 695 F.2d 1343, 1344-45 (10th Cir.1982)). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested instruction to the jury.
The instructions provided by the district court with respect to the disputed mens rea element “correctly state[d] the governing law and provide[d] the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards.” Fredette, 315 F.3d at 1240 (quotations omitted). The court instructed the jury that Defendant must have known or had reasonable cause to believe that the ephedrine and pseu-doephedrine he sold would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. The court further instructed the jury that this inquiry is entirely subjective, the inquiry is not to be viewed from the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable person, and the mens rea element is not satisfied if Defendant acted through mistake, negligence, carelessness, or belief in an inaccurate proposition. The instructions, viewed as a whole, provided the jury with an ample understanding of the disputed mens rea element, and no additional instructions were required.
III. Sentencing Error
For the first time on appeal, Defendant argues he is entitled to resentencing under Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 738.4
In Booker, the Court “reaffirm[ed that] [a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756. As a result, the Court held that mandatory application of the Guidelines violates the Sixth Amendment when judge-found facts, other than those of prior convictions, are employed to enhance a sentence.
United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 731 (10th Cir.2005) (en banc). “To remedy this constitutional infirmity created by applying judge-found facts to mandatory sentencing guidelines, the [Booker] Court severed the provision of the Sentencing Reform Act making application of the Guidelines mandatory,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1). United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1174 (10th Cir.2005). There, are, then, “two distinct types of [Booker] error.” Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 731. First, the sentencing court can violate the Sixth Amendment “by relying upon judge-found facts, other than those of prior convictions, to enhance a defendant’s sentence mandatorily.” Id. [1134]*1134Second, a sentencing court can commit non-constitutional Booker error “by applying the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, as opposed to a discretionary fashion, even though the resulting sentence was calculated solely upon facts that were admitted by the defendant, found by the jury, or based upon the fact of a prior conviction.” Id. at 731-32.
Booker applies “to all cases on direct review.” Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 769. Nonetheless, because Defendant did not raise this issue at sentencing, we review only for plain error. See Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 732.
Although Defendant argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing a sentence based upon the quantity of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine the court found that Defendant unlawfully distributed, there is no constitutional error in this case because Defendant admitted unlawfully distributing those specific amounts during his sentencing. The presentence report calculated Defendant’s sentence based upon the “39.35 grams of Ephedrine and 43.2 grams of Pseudoephedrine” Defendant sold to the government’s confidential informant on May 11, 2001. The government objected to those amounts, arguing instead that Defendant’s sentence calculation should also include the 2,625 grams of ephedrine that federal authorities later seized from Defendant on May 23, 2001.5 In response to the government’s argument, defense counsel affirmatively asserted at sentencing that the district court should only base Defendant’s sentence on the amount of controlled substances already included in the presentence report’s calculations, stating, “I still believe that the calculations in the guidelines provided by the probation department are in fact correct, and we object to any attempt to include [other] amounts.” Defense counsel further asserted that “the presentence preparers are exactly correct. [Defendant] ought to be punished for what he did. He’s been convicted of it.” Thus Defendant, acting through his counsel, admitted unlawfully distributing the amount of controlled substances included in the presentence report. The district court agreed, calculating Defendant’s sentence only on the amount of controlled substances included in the pre-sentence report. Because Defendant admitted unlawfully distributing those amounts, the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment when the court used those amounts to calculate Defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir.2005).6
The district court did commit non-constitutional Booker error, however, when the court treated the Guidelines as mandatory, rather than discretionary. See United States v. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d 932, 941 (10th Cir.2005); United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 818-19 (10th Cir.2005). That error satisfies the first two prongs of the plain-error analysis. See Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 732. The government concedes as much in its brief.
[1135]*1135Turning to the plain-error test’s prejudice inquiry, we consider whether Defendant has met his burden of establishing that this plain error affected his substantial rights. See Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 819. “To demonstrate that the mandatory application of the Guidelines affected substantial rights, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the defects in his sentencing altered the result of the proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). Defendant “can make this showing by demonstrating a reasonable probability that had the district court applied the post -Booker sentencing framework, he would have received a lesser sentence.” Id.
We do not need to address the prejudice prong under Olano because, in any event, Defendant cannot meet his burden under the fourth prong. See Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 737. “Under the fourth prong of plain-error review, a court may exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736. “In an instance of non-constitutional error the standard for satisfying the fourth prong of the plain error test is demanding.” Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1178. “[FJailing to correct non-Sixth Amendment Booker error when the defendant has failed to preserve the error in the district court will rarely be found to [have] seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d at 941-42; see also Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 820 (calling this a “formidable” standard).
Evidence that would tend to support an exercise of our discretion under this standard might include, for example: (a) a sentence increased substantially based on a Booker error; (b) a showing that the district court would likely impose a significantly lighter sentence on remand; (c) a substantial lack of evidence to support the entire sentence the Guidelines required the district court to impose; (d) a showing that objective consideration of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors warrants a departure from the sentence suggested by the Guidelines; or (e) other evidence peculiar to the defendant that demonstrates a complete breakdown in the sentencing process.
United States v. Dowlin, 408 F.3d 647, 669, 671 (10th Cir.2005) (addressing both constitutional and non-constitutional Booker error) (internal citations omitted). Defendant has failed to show that any such circumstances exist in his case.
Addressing the first, second and fourth circumstances, there is no indication that the district court’s treating the guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory substantially increased Defendant’s sentence. Nor is there any indication that the district court would impose a significantly lighter sentence were we to remand now for re-sentencing. Rather, Defendant’s sentence fell within the applicable guideline range. There “is nothing remarkable about [Defendant’s]-criminal history.” Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 820. Nor does Defendant suggest any “unique circumstances” that might provide the district court with a reason to impose a sentence outside the now advisory guideline range. United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1188, 1200 (10th Cir.2005). There is, then, no indication that Defendant’s sentence “is anything but fair and reasonable.” Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 820; see also Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 738-39. He “received a sentence similar to the sentence most similarly historied defendants in the United States would have received for the [1136]*1136crime for which he was convicted.” Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 743 (Ebel, J., concurring).
Addressing the third situation Dowlin mentions, there was no substantial lack of evidence supporting the “entire sentence the Guidelines required.” Dowlin, 408 F.3d at 671. In fact, as we previously discussed, Defendant admitted the quantity of drugs upon which the district court based his Guideline sentence. Finally, there is no “other evidence peculiar to the defendant that demonstrates a complete breakdown in the sentencing process.” Id.
For these reasons, therefore, “[c]ore notions of justice would not be offended if this court declined to notice a sentencing error that had no [significant] effect on [Defendant’s] sentence.” United States v. Lawrence, 405 F.3d 888, 908 (10th Cir.2005); see also Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 739. We therefore decline to notice the district court’s sentencing error and instead AFFIRM Defendant’s sentence.
CONCLUSION
For the foi-egoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Defendant’s plea, did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested “innocent merchant” jury instruction, provided jury instructions that adequately covered the issues presented in this case, and did not commit plain error requiring correction in imposing sentence. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and sentence of the district court.