base, ‘crack’, as charged in the indictment.” The indictment stated that each defendant possessed with intent to distribute “over fifty (50) grams of cocaine base or ‘crack’ ” and that the conspiracy involved more than “fifty (50) grams of cocaine base.” It also fisted overt acts involving well over fifty grams and the government presented testimony that the conspiracy dealt with amounts far exceeding fifty grams. The error was harmless. Given the reference to the indictment, the jury found the defendants guilty of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute “over fifty (50) grams of cocaine base,” and the record holds more than enough evidence to substantiate the over fifty grams threshold that triggers maximum sentencing pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A). See Green, 246 F.3d at 437 (<HOLDING>). C. Sequestration of witnesses Defendants
holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless in part because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive detailed and uncontroverted holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that there was no error at all much less plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt