to come to the common-sense conclusion that when someone has both drugs and a firearm on their person, the gun is present to further drug trafficking. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. * Lomax also appeals the district court’s enhancement of his sentence under the armed career criminal provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), claiming that the application of § 924(e) violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because his prior convictions were not alleged in his indictment. Lomax's contention is without merit because Apprendi expressly excluded prior convictions from its holding. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also, e.g., United States v. Skidmore, 254 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir.2001)
holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not affect enhanced sentence under  924e and citing cases holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision holding same and citing cases holding that use under  924e requires active employment