“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” mandates that § 841(b) be reinterpreted as containing a mens rea requirement. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The problem with Rodriguez’s argument is that his knowledge of the type and quantity of drugs that he was carrying is not a fact that increases his punishment. This is so because knowledge is not an element of the sentencing enhancements set out in § 841(b). Instead, the only elements of the enhanced crimes set out in § 841(b) are the type and quantity of drug possessed. Each of the nine circuits to have considered this issue gost-Apprendi has so held. King, 345 F.3d at 152-53 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brower, 336 F.3d 274, 276-77
holding that  841b does not contain a mens rea requirement and noting the language of  841 clearly conveys congresss intent to subject drug dealers to the enhancements provided in  841b regardless of their awareness of drug type and quantity holding that congress intent in  841b was to ramp up the punishment based on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense 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 holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc  841 holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion