OPINION

Warren Boardley appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion filed *166 pursuant to former Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) 1 and denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm. Boardley pleaded guilty to racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962(c)-(Count One); a RICO violation, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962(d) (Count Two); conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count Three); and conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count Four). The district court sentenced Boardley to twenty years on Count One; seven years on Count Two, to run consecutively to the sentence on Count One; and twenty years on Count Three, to run consecutively to the other two sentences. A five-year sentence on Count Four runs concurrently with the sentence on Count One.

In his motion, Boardley attacked his convictions and sentences on Counts One, Two, and Three. The district court denied relief, and Boardley timely appealed.

To the extent that Boardley seeks to challenge his convictions, former Rule 35 is limited to correction of an illegal sentence, not an illegal conviction. See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). Thus, Boardley should challenge his convictions in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion.

Boardley contests his sentences on Counts One and Two. He mistakenly believes that those convictions were for the same offense and that the corresponding sentences exceed the statutory maximum penalty to which he was exposed. Courts have upheld convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), finding that the statutes encompass different criminal conduct. United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1115 (3rd Cir. 1990). Here, Boardley was exposed to a maximum penalty of forty years — twenty years on each count — for his violation of the two statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 1963. Contrary to Boardley’s claim, his total twenty-seven-year sentence on Counts One and Two was within the statutory maximum.

Boardley also contends that his twenty-year sentence on Count Three violated the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Assuming without deciding that an Apprendi claim is cognizable in a motion brought under former Rule 35(a), there was no Apprendi violation. Boardley pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S .C. § 846. The indictment did not allege a specific drug quantity for which Boardley was responsible. Therefore, the maximum penalty to which he was subject was twenty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 517-18 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc). 2

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before -us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.