and Gould. Accordingly, we conclude — in the phrase of the Supreme Court, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Neder, 527 U.S. at 17, 119 S.Ct. 1827 — “that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Cf. id. Accordingly, the failure to charge the jury on the issue of whether deaths of Kovach and Gould resulted from their extortion was harmless. See id. Gary Friedman also asserts an Appren-di claim related to his conviction for narcotics conspiracy. Because we have held that there is no basis to disturb his life sentence on the ITAR counts, however, his Apprendi claim related to his conviction for narcotics conspiracy is foreclosed by United States v. Rivera, 282 F.3d 74, 76-77 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). III. Conolusion In sum, we hold that: (1) We
holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that in some circumstances a sentence on one count may be increased after the sentence on a similar or related count has been vacated on appeal holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that an apprendi error was harmless where the defendant received a concurrent sentence on another count longer than the statutory maximum applicable to the count affected by the error