minimum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” 3 . To the extent that Erwin challenges the court’s findings relevant to his initial Guidelines range, we have held that the constitutional rights to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt "attach! ] only when the facts at issue have the effect of increasing the maximum punishment to which the defendant is exposed.” United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 565 (3d Cir.2007) (en banc). Because the advisory Guidelines do not "alter! 1 the judge’s final sentencing authority,” they do not have this effect and an error in their application consequently does not trigger Ap-prendi or its progeny. Id.; see also United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 117 (3d Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We lack jurisdiction to review the extent
holding that a sentence is proper as long as it is within the statutory range prescribed for the offense without regard to drug quantity holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding no merit to ineffective assistance of counsel claim with regard to sentence imposed where record demonstrated defendants sentence was within range prescribed by relevant sentencing guidelines holding that the supreme courts decision in alleyne v united statesus 133 sct 2151 186 led2d 314 2013 did not curtail a sentencing courts ability to find facts relevant in selecting a sentence within the prescribed statutory range holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc  924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review