arrested, the applicable statute would have required a term of imprisonment of between ten years and life. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (providing that the required sentence for a violation of § 841(a)(1) involving 50 grams or more of a mixture that contains cocaine base is “a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or m Lucas’s sentence is consistent with the applicable term of imprisonment corresponding to the quantity of drugs for which he acknowledged responsibility. His 17.5 year sentence does not exceed the maximum penalty set forth in § 841(b)(1)(B), nor is it at or near the statutorily prescribed minimum penalty in this subsection. We therefore conclude that Lucas’s sentence does not violate Apprendi. See United States v. Garcia, 252 F.3d 838, 843 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Ramirez, 242 F.3d 348,
holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum holding apprendi is not implicated where sentence does not exceed statutory maximum sentence authorized for the offense in its simplest form holding that the defendants sentence did not violate apprendi where the actual sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum penalty corresponding to the quantity of drugs for which the defendant acknowledged responsibility nor was the sentence at the bottom end of a higher statutory range of penalties holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable