the sentence. United States v. Cotton, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1783, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (citing Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 476, 120 S.Ct. 2348). Coitos however, only requires that the indictment charge a threshold level that includes within it the sentence that the defendant received. Id., 122 S.Ct. at 1786 n. 3. In the present case the Information charges “5 kilograms and more,” which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment under the statutory guidelines of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). See Information at 1. Thus, the Information charges the thresh7 old level of the sentence that Parrado received. Moreover; Parrado’s failure to allege ‘the Information was defective at the time of his trial waives any right that he had to challenge the Information. See id., 122 S.Ct. at 1787 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the judge did not determine the drug
holding that failure to allege facts tolling the statute of limitations did not make indictment fundamentally defective or deprive trial court of jurisdiction defendants failure to object to this defect before trial waived error on appeal holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding that a failure to object to the error in the indictment at trial waives a right to challenge the indictment at a latter stage in the proceedings holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report