v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 164-65 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1177, 121 S.Ct. 1152, 148 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2001); United States v. Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318, 1327 (11th Cir.2000), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Jones, 235 F.3d 1231, 1234-36 (10th Cir.2000); cf. United States v. Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 36 (1st Cir.2001) ("The core holding of Apprendi is that, apart from the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must both be charged in the indictment and submitted to a jury for a determination under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.” (emphasis added)); cf. also United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 96 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d
holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that apprendi dictates that in order to authorize the imposition of a sentence exceeding the maximum allowable without a jury finding of a specific threshold drug quantity the specific threshold quantity must be treated as an element of an aggregated drug trafficking offense ie charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt internal footnote omitted holding that statutory maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that since drug quantity did not increase the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum apprendi did not require this fact to be determined by the jury holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court