charged and presented. Count One of the indictment against petitioner specified that the conspiracy acted in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The indictment was not so vague as to deny due process of law, and it provided petitioner with more than the required minimum notice of the charges against him. When petitioner chose to waive his right to a jury trial by pleading guilty, he had been properly informed as to the charges, and applicable penalties, that he faced. 3 . Because even the threshold amount exposes petitioner to the peak sentencing range in § 841(b)(1)(A), the indictment did not need to specify the exact amount of crack cocaine involved in the conspiracy. See United States v. DeLeon, 247 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Petitioner argues the government bears
holding that a sentence is proper as long as it is within the statutory range prescribed for the offense without regard to drug quantity 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 apprendi dictates that in order to authorize the imposition of a sentence exceeding the maximum allowable without a jury finding of a specific threshold drug quantity the specific threshold quantity must be treated as an element of an aggregated drug trafficking offense ie charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt internal footnote omitted holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs holding that an indictments allegation of a drugquantity range as opposed to a precise drug quantity is sufficient to satisfy apprendi and its progeny