which was within the 50 to 500-gram range found by the jury, and which converted to 396 kilograms of marijuana; and (3) converting the 36 grams of crystal methamphetamine into 720 kilograms of marijuana. No enhancements were applied to Williams’s offense level and he received a two-level safety valve reduction, for a 30 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2911, 165 L.Ed.2d 931 (2006) (noting that the application of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 would not violate the Fifth Amendment because it would not exceed the applicable statutory maximum under the U.S.Code). Moreover, by failing to object to the drug quantities used in the PSI, Williams admitted these facts. See United States v. Williams, 438 F.3d 1272, 1274 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 195, 166 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006) (<HOLDING>). VI. Reasonableness Williams’s challenge to
holding that the failure to contest drug amount in the psi constitutes an admission of that quantity holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission