Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's drug-quantity determination that exceeded the statutory-maximum based solely on the jury's verdict

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW I, In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.CT. 2348 (2000)], the Supreme Court held that “any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Id. at 2362-63). The statute under which petitioner, Mr. Michel, was convicted, 21 U.S.C. § 841, provides a range of statutory penalties that depends, in part, upon the quantity of drugs attributed to the defendant. For a defendant, such as appellant Michel, with no prior felony drug convictions, the minimum penalty range under § 841 is zero to twenty years. 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(C) (2000). For possession of at least five kilograms of cocaine, the maximum available sentence under § 841 rises to life imprisonment. 21 U.SC. § : 841 (b)(1)(B). Accordingly, if the drug quantity attributed to a defendant is not submitted to a jury, the statutory maximum under § 841 is twenty years pursuant to § 841 (b)(1)(C), which requires no finding of drug amount. And, under Eleventh Circuit law, a defendant sentenced under the, then, mandatory Sentencing Guidelines must be sentenced under a “specific” base offense level and guidelines range, as shown below. In this case, after the Court of Appeals | reversed Mr. Michel’s sentence based on the Apprendi Rule, the lower court, again, and in violation of Apprendi, made yet another drug quantity determination i 7 and reimposed another illegal sentence contrary to this Court’s decision in Apprendi, which was subsequently affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and is the basis for this appeal and petition. The question for this Court to decide is “whether the Court of Appeals erred, reversibly, in affirming the district court’s decision—making a drug quantity determination, after ‘the Remand—where the sentence, again, exceeded the authorized statutory maximum [for Apprendi purposes] which is the maximum authorized based solely on the jury’s verdict alone?” I. = In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court, with , respect to the Organizer and/or Leadership Role enhancements, stated that this factor, like the drug quantity determination, “violated Apprendi because neither were found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Booker, the Justices made ' observations as it relates to Prosecutors seeking to enhance a defendant’s sentence, and what it would require in order to conform with the dictates of the, then, new Apprendi Rule. There, JUSTICE STEVENS observed, and pointed to two analysis of, what was required for prosecutors to lawfully seek enhancements of the particular defendant’s sentence. Specifically, Justice Stevens, in the second analysis, stated, in relevant part, that: ; ii “Enhancing the specificity of indictments would be a simple matter... The Government has already directed its prosecutors to allege facts such as ... the defendant was an organizer or leader ... in the indictment and prove them to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 277-78. (emphasis added) In appellant’s case, the Government failed, completely, to comply with the Justices’ “observances” so as to comply with Apprendi and the Sixth Amendment guarantee when appellant’s sentence was “enhanced” by three-levels based solely on the government’s request and the lower court’s finding that Mr. Michel was in a leadership role. Therefore, this error is not harmless as it is a constitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law doctrines. | The question for this Court to decide is “whether the Court of Appeals erred, ~ reversibly, by affirming the lower court’s factual finding, without a jury finding, | regarding leadership or organizer role and imposing a sentence that exceeded the authorized statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes?” : . iii . CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Petitioner, Georges Michel, certifies that the following list of persons have an interest