at 19. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the statute was “nothing more nor less than the action of Congress to insure that the procedure in the federal courts in the prosecution of a case involving the application of the death penalty complies with the Constitution.” Id. at 17. Thus, because § 848 is constitutionally firm, this Court’s only charge is to ensure that the Government has complied with the statute in a manner that does not aggrieve Defendants’ constitutional rights. As a threshold matter, there appears to be some conflict in the Fourth Circuit as to whether, under Ring, the aggravating factors required for a sentence of death need to be charged in the indictment and passed upon by a Grand Jury. Compare United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 299 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) ivith United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476,
holding double jeopardy did not prohibit capital prosecution of defendant who pled guilty to seconddegree murder and agreed to testify against codefendants but violated plea agreement by refusing to testify at retrial and state properly sought new indictment for capital murder resulting in death sentence imposed at trial for firstdegree murder holding that it is unconstitutional to base aggravating circumstance in capital prosecution on felony that was used to obtain firstdegree murder conviction holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction holding evidence sufficient to support aggravating factor of old age holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor