show that he is not the person previously convicted.” United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir.1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, although § 851(a) requires that the government file “an information,” the document is often referred to as a “notice.” See United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 754 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 1673, 137 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1997). The district court’s desire that the information be restyled as a notice may have been prompted by uncertainty over the effect of the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, this Court has since held that judicial factfinding under § 851 does not violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 224 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Clarke suggests that the district court
holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 was not violated where the sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum holding that  851 factfinding falls within the prior conviction exception set out in apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 490 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 does not apply to a judges exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute holding that almendareztorres remains binding despite apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998