was “plain,” which is the second requirement of the plain error test. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. Those assumptions are not enough, however, because Vasquez cannot meet the third requirement of the test, which is that he show that the district court’s alleged error prejudiced him — that it created a reasonable probability of a different result. See id. at 1299. One reason that he cannot show that is because the court also based the manager-or-supervisor enhancement on the undisputed fact that Vasquez provided the money with which the conspirators bought the heroin. We have held that “provid[ing] funding for [a] criminal endeavor” supports a § 3B1.1 enhancement. United States v. Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825, 830 (11th Cir.1995); cf. United States v. Packer, 70 F.3d 357, 362 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Another reason Vasquez cannot show that the
holding that the district court lacked authority to revisit the application of the career offender enhancement in a  3582 motion because that enhancement was not affected by a retroactive amendment holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes holding that for recovery under the mississippi tort claims act to be barred because of a victims criminal activity at the time of the injury it must beshown that the criminal activity has some causal nexus to the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor 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 providing the necessary funding for criminal activity supports a  3b11 enhancement