1. The enhanced-penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 851 expressly require that the district court, not a jury, make factual findings which increase the mandatory-minimum sentence. Specifically, the district court is directed to determine whether the defendant has suffered a prior conviction and whether that conviction qualifies as a "felony drug offense," as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802(44). Is this sentencing scheme – which requires judicial factfinding as to the facts about a prior conviction, as opposed to the fact of a prior conviction, in order to increase the mandatory-minimum sentence – unconstitutional in violation of the principles set forth in Alleyne v. United States and Apprendi v. New Jersey?

2. If the judicial factfinding required by 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 851 is not deemed unconstitutional under Alleyne and Apprendi, because it falls within the "fact of a prior conviction" exception created in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, should the Court overrule that decision?

Whether the enhanced-penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 851 that require judicial factfinding about a prior conviction to increase the mandatory-minimum sentence are unconstitutional under Alleyne and Apprendi