530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). The statutory mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) are not triggered unless and until a jury has found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the quantity of a controlled substance. See United States v. Velasco-Heredia, 319 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that after Apprendi the statutory mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841 do not apply “until the jury, or the court in a bench trial, finds beyond a reasonable doubt [ ] the quantity involved in the violation.”). Because mandatory minimum sentences under section 841(b) presuppose a jury’s determination of the underlying facts, their imposition does not offend either Apprendi or Blakely. See United States v. Hitchcock, 298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.2002), as amended, (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Duarte would have us hold
holding that because closing arguments do not constitute evidence a prosecutors statement did not implicate the confrontation clause holding that mandatory minimums do not implicate apprendi holding that  924es consecutive sentences apply even when the underlying crimes carry their own mandatory minimums holding apprendi is not retroactive holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively