merits. Nonetheless, however one may appraise a cooperating witness’s moral worth, we are concerned that by preventing a witness from bringing his attorney to a debriefing interview, the government is expanding its discretion in a way unauthorized by the Guidelines. By not providing the witness in this case the opportunity to bring his retained counsel, the gov ernment tipped the balance in its dealings with a cooperating witness in a way that is “unseemly,” Pinto, 850 F.2d at 935. Further, since the district court explicitly relied on defendant’s lack of candor, its sentencing error was not harmless. Plainly, this factor influenced the sentencing court’s selection of the sentence. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Reading the entire record leads us
holding that a 16 month relationship was not of sufficient length holding that an error in guideline calculation seriously affected the defendants substantial rights because the starting point for consideration of  3553a factors was five months higher than it should have been holding that consideration of original sentence on remand for resentencing was inapplicable when original sentences were void recognizing same factors holding remand required where consideration of impermissible factors affected length of sentence