With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). The statutory mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) are not triggered unless and until a jury has found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the quantity of a controlled substance. See United States v. Velasco-Heredia, 319 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that after Apprendi the statutory mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841 do not apply “until the jury, or the court in a bench trial, finds beyond a reasonable doubt [ ] the quantity involved in the violation.”). Because mandatory minimum sentences under section 841(b) presuppose a jury’s determination of the underlying facts, their imposition does not offend either Apprendi or Blakely. See United States v. Hitchcock, 298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.2002), as amended, (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Duarte would have us hold

A: holding that  924es consecutive sentences apply even when the underlying crimes carry their own mandatory minimums
B: holding that because closing arguments do not constitute evidence a prosecutors statement did not implicate the confrontation clause
C: holding that mandatory minimums do not implicate apprendi
D: holding apprendi is not retroactive
C.