these requirements, our “discretion is appropriately exercised only when failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 555 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Memminger asserts that the district court plainly erred in concluding that the predicate offenses set forth in the information filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) qual plainly erred in relying on the predicate offenses to sentence him to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence because the offenses were not charged in the indictment. His argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Memminger’s conviction
holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under  924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury holding that a sentence may be enhanced based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment admitted on the record or proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted