Amendment by sentencing him as an armed career criminal. IV. Crews also contends that the district court erred in applying a four-level increase to his offense level for use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. He argues that the district court based this increase on information that did not have sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy because the presentence investigation report contained contradictory information. Even assuming arguendo that the district court erred in applying the four-level increase under § 2K2.1, the er ror was harmless, as the increase had no effect on Crews’s ultimate offense level, which was determined by the application of the ACCA. United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1220 n. 39 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). V. Crews’s final argument on appeal is that
holding that any error by a district court in applying a sentencing enhancement is harmless if it did not change a defendants total offense level holding that failure to consider guidelines note in applying sentencing enhancement was reversible error holding without discussion that the district court erred by applying the numberofweapons enhancement to an offense underlying the defendants  924c conviction holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed