(2006); and one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Williams appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. We affirmed Williams’ conviction but because he was sentenced under the lude that Williams’ Sixth Amendment rights were not violated because the district court enhanced Williams’ Guidelines range based on facts found by it under a preponderance of the evidence standard. Because the district court appropriately treated the resultant Guidelines range as merely advisory, and since Williams’ sentences on each count were within the statutory máximums authorized by the jury’s verdict, we find that the district court fully complied with the Sixth Amendment. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 232-44, 125 S.Ct. 738 (<HOLDING>); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requiresthe jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury