the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2537. Butler argues that his “Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the court used drug amounts and U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d) to enhance his sentence.” He also takes issue with the application of the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which is based on his prior convictions. However, as explained supra, the jury specifically found the drug amounts beyond a reasonable doubt, and prior convictions need not be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under the Apprendi line of cases, even if they increase the minimum sentence applicable to a defendant. See Book er, 125 S.Ct. at 756; Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2537. Moreover, Butler admitted his previous drug felony convictions at trial. Cf. id. (<HOLDING>). Regardless, Butler’s Sixth Amendment argument
holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation holding that an upward departure based on judges finding of deliberate cruelty violated the sixth amendment when the facts supporting that finding were neither admitted by defendant nor found by a jury holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant