he specifically stipulated that his applicable Guideline range was 50 kilograms to 150 kilograms of cocaine. Moreover, the probation report determined the applicable quantity of cocaine to be 75 kilograms and neither Melendez’s objections to the presentence report nor his sentencing letter to the district court requested that less than five kilograms should be attributed to him. We accordingly conclude that the district court properly attributed more than five kilograms of cocaine to Melendez. Having determined that the district court properly attributed in excess of five kilograms of cocaine to Melendez, the district court then was constrained to impose the statutory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. See, e.g., United States v. DeMaio, 28 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rudolph, 970 F.2d 467, 470
holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum  not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures  and thus them ultimate sentences  were based holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under  3582c2 holding that a sentencing court may not depart below a statutory minimum on any ground other than substantial assistance to criminal investigation holding that district court did not have authority to depart any further below the statutory minimum after granting the  3553e motion and therefore need not consider the  3553a factors holding that defendants aberrant behavior will not justify a departure below a statutory minimum