was ten years, and that he faced a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Lucas contends that this statement was erroneous, and therefore violated Rule 11. To support his argument, Lucas relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), where the Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, 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.” Id. at 490. This court has applied Apprendi’s holding to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), which determines the maximum and minimum penalties based on the quantity of drugs for which a defendant is accountable. United States v. Ramirez, 242 F.3d 348, 351-52 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Page, 232 F.3d 536, 543 (6th
holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs holding that  841bls prescribed mandatory minimum penalties which are based in part upon the quantity of drugs implicate apprendi holding that  841bls mandatory minimum provisions were rationally related to the objectives of protecting public health and welfare