“In regard to this third prong, it is the defendant rather than the government who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). If “we would have to speculate” about “the effect of an error on the result in the district court,” the defendant has not met his burden. Id. at 1301. “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if ... the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1298 (quotations marks omitted). The government concedes that the district court erred in considering “Vasquez’s conduct once Sella and Wornick became cooperators,” Appellee Br. 14, and we will assume that conce 1th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Njau, 386 F.3d 1039, 1041
holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was a manager or supervisor under  3bllb in part because he recruited accomplices holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer leader manager or supervisor under  3bllc in part because the defendant actively recruited two individuals to transport drugs holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer or leader under  3blla because the defendant recruited and instructed coconspirators