Defendant's 46-Month Sentence

Defendant is appealing his 46-month sentence following a guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The sentence length was determined, as per Federal Sentencing Guidelines, using Defendant’s criminal history score. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. Defendant takes issue with the district court’s assignment of one point to his criminal history score for a prior marijuana conviction. We hereby affirm the sentence for the reasons stated below.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
On August 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. There were no disputed facts at the time of the sentencing. A Presentence Investigation Report was conducted, by the Probation Office, to identify ameliorating

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A de novo standard has been adopted for appellate review of sentencing guideline issues regarding purely legal questions. United States v. Rodriguez–Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1136–37 (11th Cir. 2004). In Barakat, the court clarified that interpretation and application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines is a purely legal question. United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997). The harmless-error doctrine applies to appellate cases, and therefore errors that do not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
IV.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Similarly, in Mathenia, the 11th District held that “a non-constitutional error is harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the sentence, or had but very slight effect. If one can say with fair assurance that the sentence was not substantially swayed by the error, the sentence is due to be affirmed even though there was error.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th