of supervised release, and to pay a special assessment of $400. Massey appealed, raising a number of arguments all but one of which we rejected without discussion. In a footnote, we held that Massey was not entitled to relief under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which was decided after oral argument but before we ruled, because “Massey’s sentence was not ‘beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.’ ” United States v. Massey, No. 98-1934, at 4 n. 1, 229 F.3d 1139, 2000 WL 1158121 (3d Cir. July 25, 2000) (unpub.mem.op.). Massey’s sentence, however, was vacated and the matter remanded, with the District Court instructed to resentence him in accordance with the opinion in a related case, United States v. Watterson, 219 F.3d 232, 239 (3d Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). Massey’s petition for rehearing en banc was
holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy holding that relief under 18 usc  3553f the statutory safety valve provision is not available to defendants convicted of a violation of 21 usc  860 because that offense is excluded from the list of offenses to which the statutory safety valve applies holding that it was error to subject the defendant to a twolevel enhancement under ussg  2d12 which addresses inter alia drug trafficking near a protected location when the defendant was neither convicted of nor stipulated to a violation of 21 usc  860 which penalizes drug offenses committed near schools holding sufficient to support conviction under  924c evidence of loaded assault rifle recovered from location near where defendants drug transactions were known to occur holding that a defendant who stipulated his drug amounts prior to sentencing waived his right to appeal on the issue of the drug amounts