Whether a district court commits procedural error by basing its sentencing guideline calculation on a discretionary judicial finding by a preponderance of the evidence that is inconsistent with an element admitted by the guilty pleas of a defendant and all coconspirators

QUESTION PRESENTED Marcos Castaneda admitted by his plea to the elements of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, a charge that triggered the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). In previously sentencing nineteen coconspirators, the district court found their pleas proved that the substance involved was a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. In sentencing Castaneda, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance involved was “ice”, increasing the guideline base offense by four levels. Castaneda asserts that the district court’s inconsistent drug type finding created procedural error in violation of his constitutional due process and jury trial rights. In Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), this Court held that any fact which increases the mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Castaneda’s petition presents the following question: whether a district court commits procedural error by basing its sentencing guideline calculation on a discretionary judicial finding by a preponderance of the evidence that is inconsistent with an element admitted by the guilty pleas of a defendant and all coconspirators. i