leader, manager or supervisor is clearly erroneous thereby rendering Johnson ineligible for any role enhancement of any kind, the erroneous two-level enhancement (as opposed to a three- or four-level enhancement) does not prejudice either the defendant or the government. It is only if Johnson is ineligible for an aggravated role in the offense adjustment of any kind that a remand would be necessary because if he were to receive no such enhancement, his offense level would be 34, Criminal History Category IV, with a sentencing range of 210 to 240 months (actually 210-262 from the Sentencing Table, but the top end of the range is capped by the statutory maximum of 240 months per Apprendi). See USSG § 5Gl.l(c)(l); see also United States v. O’Hagan, 139 F.3d 641, 658 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). We must therefore consider whether the
holding that resentencing is not required if court concludes the sentence would have been essentially the same as originally imposed holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required