sentencing him to life imprisonment was not erroneous. C. The district court’s failure to consider making Sanchez’s life sentence concurrent with his state term of imprisonment Sanchez argues that the district court erred in finding that it lacked discretion to make his federal life sentence concurrent with his current state term of imprisonment. The government concedes that the district court erred in finding it had no discretion, 2003 WL 22706781 at *275; see also United States v. Arellano-Torres, 303 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2002), but argues that any error is harmless because Sanchez will spend the rest of his life in prison whether the federal sentence runs concurrent with or consecutive to his state sentence. See United States v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510, 513-14 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In light of the government’s concession that
holding that prejudice is shown where a sentencing error may affect the determination of sentence holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that an incorrect guidelines calculation generally requires a remand for resentencing unless we conclude on the record as a whole  that the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed citation omitted recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case