reliance thereupon. Further, the district court properly took Cash’s admission at face value and relied upon it to determine that Cash, in fact, received at least six packages of methamphetamine. No further proof is needed to establish beyond a preponderance of the evidence, for sentencing purposes, that Cash received six packages of methamphetamine. Cash never recanted or qualified this statement, and the court reasonably held Cash accountable for his admission. Finally, Cash maintains that even if the court properly considered his admission that he received six packages, the packages of methamphetamine were for his own personal use and therefore cannot be aggregated for purposes of determining his relevant conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Wyss, 147 F.3d 631, 632-33 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kipp, 10 F.3d 1463, 1465-66
holding that simple possession is not a lesserincluded offense of distribution of a controlled substance holding drugs purchased for personal use should not be included as relevant conduct when conviction is for distribution of controlled substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance