on this basis at trial and we see no plain error. See United States v. Klinger, 128 F.3d 705, 711-12 (9th Cir. 1997) (as amended). A defendant may be found guilty of personally committing the offense, as an aider or abetter, or under Pinkerton. See Olano, 62 F.3d at 1199; United States v. Castaneda, 16 F.3d 1504, 1511 (9th Cir.1994). Ill Wrobel maintains that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the 12-level enhancements should be stricken because all facts underlying sentencing enhancements must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. She is wrong. Even with the enhancements, Wrobel’s sentence on each count was less than the statutory maximum. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d 483, 488-89 (9th Cir.2000) (as amended) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1132 n.
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 any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that an apprendi error was harmless where the defendant received a concurrent sentence on another count longer than the statutory maximum applicable to the count affected by the error 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 holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum