was erroneous and that the actual amount of crack distributed was 108 grams. Therefore, Davis’ offense level under the sentencing guidelines should have been set at 32 instead of 34, and his sentencing range should have been 152 to 188 months instead of 188 to 235 months. Given the district court’s willingness to sentence Davis at the low end of the guideline range, this error probably resulted in Davis’ receiving a three year longer sentence than he otherwise would have. Consequently, even though defense counsel did not object to this factual inaccuracy at sentencing, we find plain error and remand for resentencing based on the correct amount of crack. See United States v. Skillman, 922 F.2d 1370, 1379 (9th Cir.1990), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 353, 116 L.Ed.2d 275 (1991) (<HOLDING>). B. Acceptance of Responsibility Davis argues
holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case holding that prejudice is shown where a sentencing error may affect the determination of sentence recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed