at 215-16, 80 S.Ct. 270. Accordingly, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in sentencing the appellants for a crime with which they were never charged, thus depriving them of the constitutional right to “answer” only for those crimes presented to the grand jury. B. Having identified the nature of the error committed by the district court, we must resolve the question that plagued an evenly divided court in Promise — that is, whether we should exercise our discretion to correct the error where an indictment fails to charge drug quantity and the district court sentences a defendant to a term of imprisonment that exceeds the statutory maximum set forth in section 841(b)(1)(C). Compare Promise, 255 F.3d at 164 (Wilkins, J., joined by Wilkinson, C.J., and Williams and Trader, JJ.) (<HOLDING>), with id. at 190 (Motz, J., joined by Widener,
holding that before the accessory to a crime can be convicted as such it must be shown that the crime has been committed by the principal holding that an alleged failure of the district court to reduce a sentence did not work a miscarriage of justice sufficient to make an appellate waiver unenforceable holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest holding that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the defendant to avoid a sentence for the aggravated drug trafficking crime that evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates he committed holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest