OPINION

Christopher Lee Tuttle pled guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). He contests the 156-month career offender sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level by three levels for possession of a firearm during the offense when that fact was not alleged in the indictment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(b)(4), 4B1.1 (2001). He contests his career offender sentence on the same ground. We affirm.

Tuttle contends that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), facts that increase the sentencing guideline range must be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Apprendi is not implicated when the sentencing court makes factual findings that increase the sentencing guideline range but the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum. Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 2418, *651 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). The statutory maximum for Tuttle’s offense is 240 months.

Because neither of the issues raised by Tuttle has merit, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 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.