of money laundered between $7 million to $20 million and based on his role as an organize 11th Cir.2005) (finding that district court’s express statements that the defendant might not benefit under an advisory system with the court’s warning that defendant was at risk for an upward departure made statutory error harmless). Soreide next argues that the district court failed to make specific factual findings with regard to the nature and scope of Soreide’s relevant conduct in the conspiracy. Because we find that there was ample evidence to support the district court’s description and determination as to Soreide’s potential role, we find that the district court did not improperly fail to make specific factual findings. See United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We also find no merit to Soreide’s claim that
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law holding that a sentencing courts failure to make individualized findings regarding the scope of defendants activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the record supported the courts determination with respect to the offense conduct including the imputation of others unlawful acts to the defendant citing united states v matthews 168 f3d 1234 1247 11th cir1999 holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under  3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings