in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because drug quantity was not charged in the indictment. Because Talouzi did not raise this argument below, this court’s review is only for plain error. United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646-47 (4th Cir.2001). Talouzi’s 120 month sentence is below the lowest possible statutory maximum in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 1999); thus, the sentence does not violate Apprendi. See Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 647 n. 3 (assuming “without deciding that the maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of § 841(a) without regard to drug quantity is twenty years”); United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 219 (4th Cir.2000) (applying a plain error standard of review); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We therefore find no plain error in this
holding that apprendi does not apply to a judges exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing 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 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