1, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements: ... the overall scope of the agreement involved more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana.” ,R. vol. 1 at 401. In turn, the verdict form directed the jury to make its findings on count 1 “[ujnder instructions 19-21.” Id. at 433. “We presume the jury follows its instructions” in the absence of an overwhelming probability to the contrary. United States v. Rogers, 556 F.3d 1130, 1141 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Herron, 432 F.3d 1127, 1135 (10th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to think that the jury disregarded its instructions, and we see no reason to reject the presumption here. Thus, we reject Los’s challenge to the sentence on count one. See United States v. Singh, 532 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. O’Neel, 362 F.3d 1310, 1314
holding that no apprendi violation took place when the burden of proof on a fact which enhanced the statutory maximum was contained in a jury instruction but not in the verdict form holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court