of appeals that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor.” See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). Thus, to establish harmless error here, “the United States has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the district court’s error did not affect the court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” United States v. Conlan, 500 F.8d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir.2007); see Fed.R.Crim.P 52(a). B. The District Court Erred When it Gave a One-level Downward Adjustment under § 3E1.1 All parties rightly agree that the district court’s one-level downward adjustment, anchored by § 3E1.1, was an incorrect application of the guidelines. See United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151, 1158 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We next consider whether the error was
holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide holding because  3e11 is an all or nothing proposition it was error for the district court to split the difference by granting a onelevel downward adjustment holding we would find an abuse of discretion if the district court had granted the downward adjustment holding that after granting the governments motion for downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the district court did not err when it determined that the starting point for departing downward was the higher statutorily required minimum sentence and not the lower otherwise applicable guideline range