did not mislead the defendant as to his sentencing exposure. In other words, having obtained the relevant sentencing information in advance of the plea proceeding, and having accurately stated it on the record to inform the defendant and assist the District Court, the Government should have paid more careful attention to the remainder of the colloquy, in order to ensure that nothing that was said by the Court confused or misstated the sentencing exposure. 2 . Fox also claims that the District Court plainly erred by engaging in impermissible judicial fact-finding regarding the existence of his prior conviction, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. We disagree. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Alleyne v. United States, --- U.S.
holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment holding that where a statute provides for an enhanced penalty based on a defendants prior conviction the fact of conviction is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a jury holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding statute permitting increased sentence based on prior conviction is penalty provision not element of offense holding that a prior conviction is not a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines if the statute that provides the basis for the prior conviction sweeps more broadly than the generic crime described in the guidelines