evidence of drug quantity. Cf. Webb, 255 F.3d at 902 (concluding that an Apprendi error was not plain where the defendant offered no “scenario under which he could plausibly have disputed the drug quantities specified by the chemist”). In sum, because Pettigrew has failed to demonstrate that the omission of drug quantity from his jury instructions affected the outcome of his district court proceedings, he has failed to establish prejudice sufficient to overcome his procedural default. As a consequence, this court cannot overturn his convictions for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and § 860(a). And because those convictions stand, the sentence that Pettigrew received — which he concedes was appropriate for the violation of those statutes — stands as well. See Johnson, 331 F.3d at 970 (<HOLDING>); Webb, 255 F.3d at 900, 902 (same). IV For the
holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him holding that where a conviction survives an apprendi challenge under plain error review a sentence appropriate for that conviction also survives holding that turner precluded an apprendi claim under  2255 because the defendants conviction became final before the issuance of apprendi holding that a plain error that is fatal to a conviction is sufficient to warrant reversal holding that remand for resentencing is appropriate when sentence for reversed conviction appears to have influenced trial courts sentence for the affirmed conviction