Clause and is constitutional in this regard. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Act remains constitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Jones, Apprendi and Ring. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Government’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty, or, in the Alternative to Strike Aggravating Factors, Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike “Notice of Special Findings” from Superseding Indictment and Motion to Bar Government from ing "[ojther 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.”); Jones, 526 U.S. at 243 n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215 (<HOLDING>). 3 . See e.g., Ring, 122 S.Ct. at 2445
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 under the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the sixth amendment any fact other than prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than fact of prior convictions which increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact  that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt holding that other 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