for not more than twenty years” for a money laundering conviction); 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (providing that a person who conspires to commit money laundering is “subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy”). Daniels was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 210 months (17.5 years), followed by 2 years of supervised release. Because Daniels’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses that she was found guilty of committing, Apprendi is not implicated, and the amount of laundered money for which Daniels was held responsible did not need to be set forth in the indictment, presented to the jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Corvado, 227 F.3d 528, 542 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). With regard to Daniels’s argument that she
holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding apprendi inapplicable in heroin trafficking prosecution even though drug quantity not determined by the jury because district court sentenced defendant within the statutory maximum holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing