imprisonment imposed by the District of Columbia on August 20, 1999. U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 5G1.3(a). In such circumstances, § 5G1.3(a) directs that “the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.” Id. The relevant application note, Application Note 1 to § 5G1.3(a), is in accord. Hence, while the district court may have erred in thinking that Note 6 was the relevant application note, a consecutive sentence was nonetheless required, and the consecutive sentence that the court imposed therefore contains no error. By the same token, because HaU’s sentence does not differ from the one the court was required to impose by a correct application of the guidelines, the defendant has suffered no prejudice. See Saro, 24 F.3d at 288 (<HOLDING>). We therefore reject his request to remand the
holding that to establish prejudice the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood that the sentencing courts obvious errors affected his sentence holding that all sentencing errors must be preserved holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that defendant must show reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the sentence would have been significantly less harsh holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different