Phillip James Ginder. appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for knowingly and intentionally importing marijuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, Ginder contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Mendozar-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002). Ginder also contends that under Apprendi the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the drug type and quantity. We recently rejected this argument in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that apprendi does not change the long established rule that the government need only show that the defendant knew he imported or possessed some controlled substance holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance