exists that he provided security for Del Rosario while distributing the drugs. The full amount was reasonably foreseeable to Batoon because he was in the apartment for an extended period of time while the drugs were being distributed, and there was information circulating that a large shipment had arrived from the Philippines. With the above in mind, it cannot be said that the District Court committed clear error in attributing the entire amount of the drugs to Batoon as he “is accountable for all quantities of contraband with which he was directly involved and, in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, all reasonably foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope of the criminal activity that he jointly undertook.” Id.; see also Gibbs, 190 F.3d at 214-15 (<HOLDING>). C. Apprendi Although not claimed in the
holding that because at sentencing the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable the argument he seeks to make was waived holding that uncharged amounts of drugs may be included as relevant conduct even if the defendant never actually possessed or distributed the drugs holding that appellant who acted as enforcer was responsible at sentencing for all of the drugs distributed during the time he was an enforcer holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence holding extraneous evidence that defendant was using drugs admissible under rule 404b because evidence not offered to show that defendant was drug user and was using drugs at the time of the offense but to rebut the defense of consensual sex