149 L.Ed.2d 759 (2001). We need not (and do not) decide which of these conceptions of the error is correct, because under either conception Thomas has demonstrated that the error affected his substantial rights. Viewing the error as an error in sentencing, the prejudice is clear. The facts alleged in the indictment and found by the jury supported a maximum penalty of imprisonment for. twenty years (240 months). Nevertheless, the District Court sentenced Thomas to imprisonment for 292 months-52 months more than the applicable maximum. It is beyond cavil that imprisonment for an additional 52 months beyond the penalty authorized by Congress, as a direct result of the error of using a drug quantity neither charged nor found by the jury, constitutes prejudice. See Promise, 255 F.3d at 160 (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Martinez-Rios, 143 F.3d
holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law holding that a sentence to a term of imprisonment ten years greater than the applicable maximum affected the defendants substantial rights holding that because the district courts error resulted in the imposition of a sentence substantially greater than the maximum otherwise permitted under the sentencing guidelines the error affected the defendants substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum holding that because the district courts error resulted in the imposition of a senfence substantially greater than the maximum otherwise permitted under the sentencing guidelines the error affected the defendants substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings