Here, the Ninth Circuit considered the significance of Apprendi in a realm other than sentencing. Appellant challenged the validity of his conviction because the trial court did not advise him during the plea colloquy that the government would be required to prove the amount of marijuana involved in the offense to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court here found error, holding that the trial court must advise the defendant that the government would have to prove the quantity of drugs beyond a reasonable doubt in order to expose the defendant to a higher statutory maximum sentence. However, the error did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings.