sentencing should be held harmless so long as the evidence for the trial judge’s factual findings is overwhelming and no reasonable jury could have disagreed with them.” Morgan, 384. F.3d at 8 (citing Sustache-Rivera v. United States, 221 F.3d 8, 18-19 (1st Cir.2000)). That is, if the evidence overwhelmingly proves the factual basis underlying the sentence enhancement; we will find no plain error for the judge’s failure to submit the facts to a jury. We simply fail to see how a judicial finding for sentence enhancement, explicitly sanctioned by the Sentencing Guidelines; and overwhelmingly proved at trial, would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings., See. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 470, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(<HOLDING>). Here, the judge’s findings — that Stokes used
holding that the district courts faib ure to submit the issue of materiality to the jury was not an error that seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings because the evidence supporting materiality was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted at trial holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that failure to charge drug quantity in the indictment and submit it to the jury seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings so that the court should exerciseits discretion to recognize the error