OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Warren W. Wood, Jr., and Bernard Parker appeal their sentences after being convicted pursuant to their guilty pleas to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994) (Wood and Parker); using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000) (Wood); and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000) (Parker). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Wood and Parker suggest that their guilty pleas and resulting convictions and sentences should be re-evaluated in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Even assuming that 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999) provides for a statutory maximum sentence of twenty years where no drug quantity has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, a matter expressly not decided here, neither Wood’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment nor Parker’s sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment exceeds that maximum. Therefore, we find their sentences permissible under Apprendi. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2000).
Wood also argues that the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence based on drug amounts not charged in the indictment or stipulated in the plea agreement violates Apprendi. This court has observed that, pursuant to McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 86-91, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), “the legislature may ‘raise the minimum penalty associated with a crime based on non-jury factual findings, as long as the penalty is within the range specified for the crime for which the defendant was convicted.’ ” United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646-47 (4th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir .2000)).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.