place for any inquiry into a criminal statute’s mens rea requirements.” United States v. King, 345 F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation and alterations omitted), cert denied, 540 U.S. 1167, 124 S.Ct. 1184, 157 L.Ed.2d 1215 (2004); see also United States v. Nava-Sotelo, 354 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir.2003) (“In interpreting a statute, we begin with the plain language of the statute itself.” (quotation omitted)). Although § 841(a) contains a specific mens rea requirement, no such requirement is set out in § 841(b). Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (“Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ____”), with id. § 841(b) (“Except as otherwise provide L.Ed.2d 248 (2003); United States v. Villarce, 323 F.3d 435, 439 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d
holding that the quantity of drugs may not be used to support a departure holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs