to make the individualized drug quantity finding on the conspiracy count. 11 . Again, this instruction reflected the state of the law at that time. 12 . On the other hand, where the mandatory minimum and statutory maximum do not depend on drug quantity, the court, without any jury finding, may make its own drug quantity findings for .sentencing purposes. For example, during sentencing for a conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C), where the indictment had not specified the quantity of cocaine or heroin or only charged small amounts, a district court may make an individualized drug quantity finding for a conspiracy charge (and a drug quantity finding for a possession charge) by a preponderance of the evidence to determine the advisory Guidelines sentence. See Ramírez-Negrón, 751 F.3d at 4849 (<HOLDING>). After calculating that advisory Guidelines
holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that even though the guidelines are advisory a district court must accurately calculate and consult the defendants guidelines range holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under  3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings recognizing that the district court may make drug quantity findings by a preponderance of the evidence to calculate an advisory guidelines sentence for a  841b1c offense