Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding harmless error

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held, contrary to this Court’s holding in Molina-Martinez, that any error in the District Court’s choice between two guideline ranges was harmless error because of a single statement by the court that the sentence was “appropriate” under either guideline. Molina-Martinez makes it clear that where the parties anchor their sentencing arguments around the application of a certain guideline, and where that guideline is the focal point of the sentencing hearing, the court’s use of an incorrect guideline prejudices a defendant, even where the ultimate sentence falls within two guideline ranges. Whether the district court substantively and procedurally erred when it calculated the quantity of drugs for which Petitioner was responsible. The district court is required to find drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. In the present case, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. The court had insufficient evidence to find that both bank withdrawals, preceding the April 26, 2018 drug transaction, could be converted to drugs. 3