See United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 154 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (discussing plain error standard of review), petition for cert. filed, Sept. 20, 2001 (No. 01-6398). In Promise, we applied Apprendi to drug offenses in §§ 841 and 846 and held that “the specific threshold [drug] quantity must be treated as an element of an aggravated drug trafficking offense, i.e., charged in the indictment -month sentence was “longer than that to which he would otherwise be subject.” White, 238 F.3d at 542. We therefore find no plain error under Apprendi. Nor do we find plain error in the district court’s application of the enhancement for being a leader or organizer, USSG § 3131.1(a) (2000), which Turnbull alleges violates Apprendi. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 200-01 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393,
holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 does not apply to a judges exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing 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 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