was not a leader of the criminal activity, this argument is easily rejected because there was ample support for the District Court’s determination that a two level increase, as recommended by the Presen-tence Investigation Report, was appropriate because Huggins was an organizer or manager of the drug activity he engaged in. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion. We also note that, although the District Court calculated Huggins’s Guidelines range as 188 to 235 months, the Court was required to impose a mandatory minimum of 240 months on Count XII, and imposed that sentence of imprisonment for each of the six counts of conviction. Thus, if there were error in calculating the Guidelines range, it was certainly harmless. See United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205, 215 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). 2. Forfeiture Amount Huggins also claims that
holding that defendant entitled to resentencing if the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that an incorrect guidelines calculation generally requires a remand for resentencing unless we conclude on the record as a whole  that the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed citation omitted