Lugo

*255 MEMORANDUM *

Lugo appeals from the judgment entered by the district court following her conviction by a jury of violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 952, and 960(b), for possession with intent to distribute and knowing and intentional importation of 42.5 kilograms of marijuana. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , and we have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . We affirm.

Lugo first argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 960 are unconstitutional under Apprendi because they classify drug quantity and drug type as facts relevant to sentencing rather than as elements of the crime. The constitutionality of a federal statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 513 (9th Cir.2000).

A recent Ninth Circuit en banc decision explicitly held 21 U.S.C. § 841 to be facially constitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). Another recent Ninth Circuit decision applied the Buckland decision to 21 U.S.C. § 960 (b) and held that statute facially…