Whether judicial fact-finding of drug quantity for an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence violates the Sixth Amendment when the defendant and government previously stipulated to a lesser quantity?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case presents a question whether judicial fact-finding of a greater type and quantity of a controlled substance, an element of the offense, required to trigger an enhanced mandatory minimum 10 year sentence based on the reasonable foresseability of the defendant, violates the Sixth Amendment when the defendant and government stipulated to a lesser quantity attributable to the defendant that triggers a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. Further, when the plea agreement’s general stipulations are inconsistent with a specific drug type and quantity stipulation that does not permit an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence, which controls? The rule of lenity applies to judicial fact-finding that misapplies the method by which the type and quantity of a narcotic are attributed to the defendant for sentencing purposes. If two or more interpretations of the “object” of the conspiracy referred to in § 846 are possible, that statute is subject to the rule of lenity, and the construction chosen should not disfavor the defendant. i