Whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) require that when a single statute creates a tiered sentencing scheme, where and adverse evidence and instructions are given, that a majority, not just one, of the facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence must be found by a jury before a court can sentence a defendant to an increased maximum sentence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . CR) Do Ahig Conc Tuliwas wwe Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 v3. All (2000) ond Nleqne v. Waited Stakes STT U.S. 49 C2013) cequire aot whea a shole skekute creates a Merd Secremcdia, Shere aad adrece anidence and Watcuckiens ace aNen, Naat apority Sac wore Man one Mec a specra\ ver Keck Secon muss. be Oe efor? a Court Ve Reendfed Xo cemtence a LeKen&any Ve an AWacreased wawimum Secbvance above Ane \Vowerk Mat? 1<)) Conteacy Xo Oded Skates Civeurts. ave akeke courts cercecy Wwe Welding, Rroy a AcKendand Vo Cequiced No wyect ger Xe sentencing Vo a agwera\ WerddscX ov Apcy aslve WeAAOGS Nos CRN WS Vrosecudien , Wr ecded No Qresecne On Wieqne extor Row ceview ® WO Wren goke shokurtes Ackine an akemgt as a Sooerantial BkeQ VW SacWaaronce F&F a exime aad an olleagticn Mok Ce Wane WAS com@eded ‘6 wey a AKense Xo aw Kong do cNeagiivoas Ka compexed VENA Beebe Ww YR Recomm Ree win, & ToNsaad Was Kore a Qeadina, o& aynk 2X aengrt 2 WD) Ls ye, greluded Rom Rondon Ay o& exwres wWhadn ce Xaie\y Wwaduded ie Ane Asoo ereserted Xo Wh CE) When Stoke statote Qrescr io 2> ® Awarunacd degactuce Cs Gnasttathrattrcne ward avers) semvence (Ka couet Sudo such degactoce Vs Vode wereceats & pavee cand a ckdte Suarteme cone \hergr ets Wis stetue wased ow Ane Seaked Sroies Sugcene Cont’ QKoperrenadt MANES ; aMMowaced ‘We Sclem Ve Welma Al? OS. 271 aa) s Whoo Srowda Wis wetecesy o& Ypatice OAS COnaat okt t