OPINION

Cleamon Anderson pled guilty in 1995 to conspiracy with intent to distribute and *191 possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994). He was sentenced to 210 months in prison. He did not file a direct appeal. In June 2000, he filed a motion under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000), seeking a reduction in his sentence. Anderson alleged that he was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently-lowered and that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court denied relief, and Anderson timely appealed.

On appeal, Anderson asserts only that his sentence violates Apprendi. This claim is more appropriately construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). This court has held that Apprendi does not apply to a judge’s exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory range, so long as a defendant’s sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 219 (4th Cir. 2000). Because Anderson’s sentence of 210 months does not exceed the statutory maximum set out in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) for core offenses without enhancement for drug quantity, we find that his sentence is permissible under Apprendi. United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000). Consequently, 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.