between the defendant who “fails to surrender after the sentence has been pronounced” and who therefore “is not faced with a potential sentence of the statutory maximum, but instead knows the actual sentence that has been imposed,” and the defendant “who fails to appear pending trial ... [who] has no knowledge of what sentence he will ultimately receive,” and for whom “the possibility remains that [he] will be sentenced to serve the statutory maximum sentence for the underlying offense.” 887 F.2d at 891. The court concluded that imposing the § 2J1.6(b) enhancement on defendants like Lee who fall in the first category is unreasonable, although the enhancement would be proper for defendants who fall within the latter category. But see United States v. Harper, 932 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443, 116
holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding in contrast to lee that even when a defendant skipped bail after he had been sentenced to less than the statutory maximum the  2j16b enhancement of 9 levels was properly applied holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines holding that the purpose of the credit statute is to provide credit for confinement    where 1 bail has been set for the defendant and 2 the defendant was financially unable to post the bail