Apprendi”). Indeed, “while we may label a fact as the ‘functional equivalent of an element’ for purposes of Apprendi, that does not trans form the fact into an offense ‘element’ for purposes of Winship.” Id. Thus, even where due process requires that a drug quantity allegation be pleaded in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant can plead guilty to the elements of the offense without admitting the drug quantity allegation. Had this case gone to trial, the government would have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas possessed at least 50 grams of cocaine base in order for the penalties in § 841(b)(1)(A) to apply. This jury determination, however, would have been relevant to sentencing, not to guilt. See Buckland, 289 F.3d at 568 (<HOLDING>); id. at 566 (noting that a penalty enhancement
holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue holding that congress intent in  841b was to ramp up the punishment based on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense holding that  841b does not contain a mens rea requirement and noting the language of  841 clearly conveys congresss intent to subject drug dealers to the enhancements provided in  841b regardless of their awareness of drug type and quantity holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion holding that up to the amount of the deductible there was no other insurance