affect a defendant’s substantial rights, when the district court’s assessment of the total punishment equals the sentence the defendant originally received. The district court may not impose a sentence above the statutory maximum for any particular count, but it will be required under § 5G1.2(d) to impose consecutive sentences “to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). We must therefore determine whether,the imposition of consecutive sentences in each of the Lott’s cases would have resulted in the total punishments determined by the district court. If so, then the Apprendi error does not affect their substantial rights, and the sentences of the district court will be affirmed. See, e.g., United States v. McLean, 287 F.3d 127, 137 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bailey, 286 F.3d 1219, 1222
holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment holding that apprendi error did not affect substantial rights where in the absence of the error the application of section 5g12d of the guidelines would have resulted in the same term of imprisonment holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury 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 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