Cone

MEMORANDUM *

Alan C. Cone appeals his conviction and sentence for fraud involving his Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 , 371, 1001, 1341, 1343. We affirm.

(1) Cone contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. We disagree. We have reviewed the record, and it is clear that a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Paeheco-Medina, 212 F.3d 1162, 1163 (9th Cir.2000). The fact that much of the evidence was supplied by an accomplice does not affect our conelusion. See United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir.1993).

(2) Cone challenges his sentence because the district court determined the amount of the government’s loss when it calculated the guideline sentence. That determination was required by the Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2Fl.l(b)(l) (1998), but Cone claims that the Constitution was thereby violated. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362-63 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Again, we disagree. Apprendi only applies to “increases [in] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.” Id. It does not apply to…