OPINION

Michael O. Downey pled guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000) . He contests the 96 month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level by three levels for brandishing or possessing a firearm during the offense when that fact was not alleged in the indictment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4) (2001) . We affirm.

Downey 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, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). The statutory maximum for Downey’s offense is 240 months.

Because the issue raised by Downey lacks merit, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense *653 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.