Gilliam

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-appellant Raymond Gilliam appeals from a conviction and 77-month sentence imposed by the district court following Gilliam’s guilty plea to possession of cocaine with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a). Gilliam initially appealed his sentence on the ground that the sentencing provisions of Section 841 are facially unconstitutional. Gilliam was also permitted to supplement his appeal by adding a claim that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury determination on drug type and quantity during his guilty plea.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we will not detail them here except as necessary.

A. Facial Challenge

Gilliam first argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (b)(1), 841(b)(2) are facially unconstitutional because they commit the determination of drug type and quantity to the judge at sentencing on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Sections 841(b)(1) and (2) permit drug type and quantity to be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt as required under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530…