With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he was charged with violating only §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, not with violating § 841(b). This argument is patently meritless. Subsection 841(b) does not state a substantive offense, but simply establishes the penalties to be imposed upon conviction for a substantive offense. Thus, once the cotut properly exercised its jurisdiction to convict Pinkley of offenses under §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, it properly sentenced him according to statute. Pinkley’s reliance upon the recent decision in United States v. Buckland, 259 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2001), that § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) is unconstitutional is unavailing. This court has rejected the same facial constitutional challenge to § 841(b) presented in Buck-land. United States v. Talley, 15 Fed. Appx. 215, 218 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally,

A: holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings
B: holding that  841b is facially constitutional because congress did not specify that only judges may make the findings required by  841b or that those findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence  
C: recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings
D: holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence
B.