McMillan

MEMORANDUM *

McMillan appeals from his sentence. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction of this timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

McMillan argues that his sentence must be vacated because neither he nor his counsel received an addendum to the presentence report prior to sentencing. The government does not dispute that McMillan was entitled to and did not receive a copy of the addendum, but it argues that any error was harmless. We review the adequacy of notice de novo. See United States v. Hinojosa-Gonzalez, 142 F.3d 1122, 1123 (9th Cir.1998). Both factual and legal grounds relied on by the district court at sentencing are within the reach of the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. See id.

We have held that harmless error analysis for lack of notice at sentencing is appropriate only “if it is clear that no prejudice resulted.” United States v. Sustaita, 1 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.1993). McMillan argues that had he and his counsel known *456 of the contents of the addendum they would have been able to emphasize that, although the language of the…