methamphetamine to the jury for the purpose of determining the applicable quantity for its Sentencing Guidelines calculations. The court did not find facts regarding the drug quantities beyond those found by the jury and Williams’s sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory máximums. The district court’s sentencing procedure, therefore, did not violate either Williams’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1223, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (“An indictment must set forth each element of the crime that it charges. But it need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime.”) (citation omitted); Odili v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 474 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1355
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 holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 was not violated where the sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 holding that the safety valve provision of 18 usc  3553f is not unconstitutional under apprendi 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 or blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 holding that  851 factfinding falls within the prior conviction exception set out in apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 490 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000