
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4487.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 6, 2001.
    Decided April 30, 2001.
    Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM,

Robert James Graves appeals his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 848 (West Supp.2000). Graves first contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we reject this contention and conclude that the evidence supported a finding that Graves organized, supervised, or managed at least five individuals in the context of running his criminal operation. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir.1993); United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 891 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982).

Graves next claims that 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West Supp.2000), is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He thus insists that his eight convictions under this statute, which were later vacated by the district court, cannot serve as the predicate offenses required for the CCE conviction. As Graves was not ultimately convicted under § 841, we find that he does not have standing to advance this challenge. Moreover, we find that the predicate offenses were properly established at trial. See Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999).

We accordingly affirm Graves’ conviction. We grant Graves’ motion requesting that we take judicial notice of a recent Supreme Court case, but decline to grant any relief based on that case. See Robinson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1135, 121 S.Ct. 1071, 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001) (remanding for consideration in light of Ap-prendi ); see also United States v. Harris, 243 F.3d 806, 2001 WL 273146 (4th Cir. Mar.20, 2001) (No. 00-4154) (holding that Apprendi does not apply to an increase in statutory minimum sentence). 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.  