a defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a district court relied on facts not found by a jury in determining his sentence. United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir.2005). We also review de novo whether the district court applied the correct standard of proof. Id. Moreland’s argument relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Blakely, and Booker. In Apprendi, the Court held that, as required by the Sixth Amendment, facts that increase the penalty of a crime beyond the statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (<HOLDING>). But the Court expressly limited its holding
holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines