commerce. United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484, 1492 (10th Cir.1989). Therefore, this claim is without merit. In his supplemental pro se brief, Lysaith contends that his sentence was imposed in violation of Apprendi because no drug quantity was alleged in the indictment. Because Lysaith did not object to or raise this issue below, review is for plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Pinckney, 938 F.2d 519, 522 (4th Cir.1991). The district court did not commit plain error. Lysaith’s sentence of 63 months imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum of 240 months set forth in § 841(a). Thus, his sentence does not implicate Apprendi. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-202 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, because Lysaith’s sentence does not
holding that apprendi does not apply to judges exercise of sentencing discretion within statutory range so long as defendants sentence is not set beyond maximum term specified in substantive statute holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum holding apprendi is not implicated where sentence does not exceed statutory maximum sentence authorized for the offense in its simplest form holding that apprendi does not apply to a judges exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute