in violation of Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), and United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 314 (4th Cir.2005). Because he failed to raise this issue in the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Assuming, without deciding, that this was error and that Andaya-Penalosa’s substantial rights were affected, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the drug quantities with which Andaya-Penalosa was involved and his admission at sentencing that he was responsible for at least five kilograms of cocaine, we decline to exercise our discretion to notice the error. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 633, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (<HOLDING>). As in Cotton, much of the evidence
holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted holding that sentence exceeding maximum authorized by facts alleged in the indictment would not be vacated on plain error review because evidence supporting judgefound facts on which sentence was based was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him holding that even if the error complained of was structural and affected substantial rights the fourth prong of olano was not met because of the overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence of petitioners guilt holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation