to achieve the total punishment calculated by the Guidelines. In Kentz, we relied on United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1074, 121 S.Ct. 2235, 150 L.Ed.2d 225 (2001). White makes it clear that the keys to understanding this process are two. First, in calculating sentences in drug cases, two separate findings of drug quantity must be made, one under the relevant statute, and then another under the Guidelines. Apprendi dictates that drug quantity under the statute must be found by the jury (in a jury case), but Apprendi does not alter the authority of the judge to sentence within the statutory range provided by Congress. See United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 218-19 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 39, 151 L.Ed.2d 12 (2001) (<HOLDING>). To determine where to fix the actual sentence
holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding the constitutional rule announced in apprendi does not prohibit a district court from finding by a preponderance of the evidence facts relevant to the application of the guidelines holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule holding in the context of a constitutional challenge to 21 usc  841 that apprendi announced a procedural rule recognizing district court application of the same rule