Hernandez

MEMORANDUM *

Pedro Hernandez brings these consolidated appeals from the imposition of sentence following his convictions in United States v. Rodriguez, the “marijuana conspiracy case,” and United States v. Hernandez, the “money laundering case.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We reject Hernandez’s assertion of Apprendi error in his marijuana conspiracy case. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Drug identity was an element of the offense charged in the marijuana conspiracy case, which had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury Instruction 34, for example, required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant intentionally delivered marijuana.” While drug quantity was not submitted to the jury, the district court correctly calculated Hernandez’s sentence because “the ‘prescribed statutory maximum’ for a single conviction under [ 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(D) ] for an undetermined amount of marijuana is five years.” United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). This…