Jose Luis Castillo appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction to con *954 spiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He argues 1) that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for a co-defendant to be present at Castillo’s sentencing hearing; 2) that the upward adjustment of his offense by two for his aggravated role in the offense was clear error; and 3) that the district court did not specify reasons for the adjustment.

Castillo received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for his offenses. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Any error with the district court’s determination of Castillo’s role in the offense, if any, is harmless error. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992); see also United States v. Williams, 22 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.