in ... this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows.... ”). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi, courts routinely held that § 841(b) imposed a strict liability punishment scheme based solely on the type and quantity of drugs possessed by the defendant and that a defendant’s knowledge of the type and quantity was not relevant to the sentencing decision. See, e.g., United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Salazar, 5 F.3d 445, 446 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Collado-Gomez, 834 F.2d 280, 281 (2d Cir.1987). Rodriguez nevertheless argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi, wherein the Court held t 4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 936, 124 S.Ct. 363,
holding that apprendi did not change the governments mens rea burden under  841 and the defendants knowledge with regard to the exact nature or for that matter the exact amount of a controlled substance is not a fact that increases the penalty under  841b holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the exact nature of the substance to establish mens rea knowledge of drugs illegality is sufficient recognizing that a conviction under  841a1 requires knowledge that the substance was a controlled substance but rejecting the argument that knowledge of the exact drug type or quantity is an element of the offense holding that  841b does not contain a mens rea requirement and noting the language of  841 clearly conveys congresss intent to subject drug dealers to the enhancements provided in  841b regardless of their awareness of drug type and quantity