be authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict. Id. at 566. In addition, we pointed out that “ ‘a penalty enhancement provision’ which is not an element of the crime charged, specifically 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(6), can be included in an indictment and submitted to a jury for a decision as to the existence of the facts that make the enhancement applicable at sentencing.” Id.; see also id. at 573 (Hug, J., concurring) (observing that the majority opinion “appears to conclude that these sections fall into a new category denominated ‘sentencing factors’ that must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but are not elements of aggravated crimes”). Our later decisions confirm this reading of Buckland. See United States v. Toliver, 351 F.3d 423, 430 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Valensia, 299 F.3d 1068,
holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that leaving the scene and failing to render assistance are separate and distinct offenses holding that drug type and quantity do not constitute formal elements of separate and distinct offenses under section 84ibl 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