OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Spencer Reed appeals his conviction and 240 month sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999). Reed’s indictment failed to state a specific drug quantity. However, Reed signed a plea agreement in which he stipulated to involvement with “not less than 50 grams” of cocaine base. Reed also stipulated to receiving a prior conviction that would enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (1994), and to a minimum incarceration period of twenty years. Reed reaffirmed these stipulations at his plea hearing.
Reed was sentenced to twenty years incarceration under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999), and argues that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), he should have been sentenced under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999) , because his indictment failed to state a drug quantity. Reed also argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851. We disagree.
Reed’s sentence does not violate Apprendi because his twenty-year incarceration period does not exceed the statutory maximum set forth in §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846. United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 517-18 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 156-57 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2000) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001); United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 219 (4th Cir.2000).
Additionally, Reed fails to establish the district court lacked jurisdiction to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851. Reed stipulated to liability for a drug quantity and a prior criminal offense, mandating a twenty-year incarceration period. Reed is bound by the terms of his plea agreement. United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir.1994); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Foster, 68 F.3d 86, 89 (4th Cir.1995).
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.