guilty but for the district court’s errors. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043. Therefore, his substantial rights were not affected, and he cannot show plain error. See id. Araromi also contends that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea. He does not dispute the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance contain ing a detectable amount of cocaine, that he knew of this agreement, or that he voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. See United States v. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d 304, 309 (5th Cir.2008). Instead, he contends that the factual basis was unclear as to the actual weight of the drugs involved in the conspiracy. See United States v. DeLeon, 247 F.3d 593, 596 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because Araromi did not challenge the
holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that postapprendi drug quantity is an element of the offense to be proven to jury holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc  841