Gonzalez

ORDER

This matter is hereby resubmitted effective May 1, 2002.

MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

A. Constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 960

Gonzalez claims that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional because it permits a judge to increase the maximum penalties for drug violations without requiring that the factors which cause such increases, drug type and quantity, be alleged in the indictment and determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury as required under Apprendi v. New Jersey. 3 We determined that § 960 is constitutional in United States v. Mendoza-Paz. 4 Thus, Gonzalez’s argument fails.

B. Constitutionality of Waiver in Proposed Plea Agreement

The proposed plea agreement provided that the Government had turned over “any information establishing the factual innocence of defendant” and acknowledged the Government’s “continuing duty to provide such information establishing the factual innocence of the defendant.” The proposed plea agreement simply required Gonzalez to waive his rights to impeachment and affirmative defense information *916 that the Government would be required to provide if the case proceeded to trial. Obviously, if the…