offense committed by a co-conspirator as long as the offense occurred within the course of the conspiracy, was within the scope of the agreement, and could reasonably be foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the agreement. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1199 (9th Cir.1995). The Supreme Court having spoken, this court cannot now hold that conviction on a Pinkerton theory is unconstitutional, as Wrobel would have us do. To the extent that Wrobel also contends that it is impossible to determine whether she was convicted under the Pinkerton instruction or the standard wire fraud instruction and that the court somehow erred in giving both instructions, she did not o (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not
holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review