the court constructively amended the indictment by holding him accountable for a drug amount not charged in the indictment, and his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 154 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc) (discussing plain error standard of review), petition for cert. filed, Sept. 20, 2001 (No. 01-6398). Cortes-Ponce argues that the indictment is defective because it failed to charge the quantity of marijuana as an element of the offense, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. We find that the indictment properly charged the offense for which Cortes-Ponce was convicted. United States v. Dinnall, 269 F.3d 418, 424 (4th Cir.2001) (No. 99-4936) (<HOLDING>); Promise, 255 F.3d at 160 (finding indictment
holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc  841 recognizing that the district court may make drug quantity findings by a preponderance of the evidence to calculate an advisory guidelines sentence for a  841b1c offense holding that guilty plea to drug trafficking offense involving unspecified quantity of drugs not called into question when defendant received sentence in excess of twentyyear statutory maximum authorized by 21 usca  841b1c west 1999 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 where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c