Verduzco-Higuera

MEMORANDUM **

David Verduzco-Higuera appeals his conviction and 27-month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Verduzco-Higuera contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings in United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 564 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 122 S.Ct. 2314 , — L.Ed.2d — (2002) (§ 841); United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960), and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 , 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952) foreclose this argument.

In the alternative, Verduzco-Higuera contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Verduzco-Higuera knew the type and quantity of controlled substance he was alleged to have imported. Verduzco-Higu-era raised this argument for the first time in his reply brief. Accordingly, we will not review the claim. See United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353,…