With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Gilberto Vasquez-Lopez appeals the 15-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vasquez-Lopez contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 2002 WL 857751 (9th Cir. May 7, 2002) (en banc). Vasquez-Lopez also contends that under Apprendi, the government is required to prove drug type and quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. We recently rejected this argument in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, -, at *7, 2002 WL 841175 (9th Cir. May 3, 2002) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not

A: holding that apprendi does not change the long established rule that the government need only show that the defendant knew he imported or possessed some controlled substance
B: holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance
C: holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance
D: holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance
A.