determinations. When a defendant is sentenced to a term that does not exceed the statutory maximum allowed for an indeterminate amount of the drug involved, the jury’s determination of drug quantity is practically irrelevant. As our cases have established, even when a jury is not presented with the quantity question, a sentence imposed below the statutory maximum allowed by the jury’s determination is proper, so long as the sentencing court was presented with sufficient evidence to support its drug calculation. United States v. Caldwell, 255 F.3d 532, 533 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam); United States v. Ortiz, 236 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 928-34 (8th Cir.2000); accord United States v. Johnston, 353 F.3d 617, 624-26 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). It follows that even if the evidence of
holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court holding that a sentencing courts drugquantity calculation can exceed the jurys drugquantity calculation  by over fifty times  so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum allowed by the jurys calculation and the sentencing courts calculation was supported by sufficient evidence holding that district courts calculation of drug quantity under guidelines for purposes of sentencing did not violate stare decisis under neal because such calculation did not conflict with any controlling sentencing precedent holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding 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