in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Reyes-Rodriguez contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960), and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952) foreclose this argument. In the alternative, Reyes-Rodriguez contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Reyes-Rodriguez knew the type and quantity of controlled substance he was alleged to have imported. This contention fails based on our holding in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
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 change the long established rule that the government need only show that the defendant knew he imported or possessed some controlled substance holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance