district court noted that the presence of sodium bicarbonate is not necessary, see United States v. Brooks, 161 F.3d 1240, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998); accord United States v. Waters, 313 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir.2002) (collecting cases), and then went on to cite trial testimony sufficient to prove the substance was indeed crack. Dist. Ct. Order at 3. Browne’s complaint that counsel failed to challenge drug quantities attributed to him was rejected based on record evidence tying him to the drugs through his participation in the conspiracy. Id. at 4-6. Finally, the court held counsel was not ineffective for lacking the “clairvoyance” to predict the abrupt change in law effected by .the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi Id at 9; see Valenzuela v. United States, 261 F.3d 694, 700 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the Apprendi claim itself,
holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel argument premised on counsels failure to anticipate apprendi would be untenable holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims