maximum. But the money laundering offense was not “referenced to this guideline” under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(a)(l). Therefore, under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(a), the correct base offense level was six, not seven, which the district court used here. The government concedes that the district court should have used a base offense level of six instead of seven. Regarding Osuji, the government recognizes that his 211-month sentence was one month outside the applicable guideline range. The government nevertheless contends that Osuji has not shown prejudicial error. We disagree and conclude that the district court plainly erred in failing properly to calculate Osuji’s base offense level and that the error affected Osuji’s substantial rights. See United States v. Godwin, 253 F.3d 784, 789 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court must resentence
holding resentencing is not always required holding that resentencing is required holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level holding government did not breach plea agreement where government provided information to probation department that would support higher base offense level and aggravated role but encouraged court not to consider such information and to calculate base offense level consistent with plea agreement