that the district court adequately discussed with James and his counsel the underlying convictions that were the basis of his enhanced sentence and gave ample opportunity for any objection. Rather than object, James indicated that the convictions were accurate throughout pre-trial, trial, and sentencing proceedings. Any error in not specifically asking whether he affirmed or denied the convictions was harmless error. TV. Prior Convictions Were Properly Considered for Sentence Enhancement Purposes Binding precedent forecloses James’s argument that the district court erred by enhancing his statutory maximum based on prior convictions not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1223-33, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>). James concedes this point but contends that
holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact  that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt