§§ 952 and 960; one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); three counts of importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and three counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Villareal-Rodriguez’s contention based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), lacks merit because his sentence of 120 months imprisonment is below the 30 year statutory maximum he would have faced pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), for his stipulation to 91 kilograms of marijuana. See United States v. Mendozar-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>)- Next, Villareal-Rodriguez contends that the
holding any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that since drug quantity did not increase the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum apprendi did not require this fact to be determined by the jury holding apprendi inapplicable in heroin trafficking prosecution even though drug quantity not determined by the jury because district court sentenced defendant within the statutory maximum