I. THE DISTRICT JUDGE VIOLATED THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS BY FINDING FACTS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, BY NOT SUBMITTING THOSE FACTS TO A JURY, AND BY IMPOSING A LONGER SENTENCE THAN THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AUTHORIZED WITHOUT THOSE FINDINGS

A. When The Maximum Sentence Authorized By Law Depends Upon The Existence Of A Fact, The Fifth And Sixth Amendments Require The Fact To Be Proven To A Jury Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Or Admitted By The Defendant

B. There Is No Principled Distinction Between The Unconstitutional Judicial Fact-Finding In Blakely And The Judicial Fact-Finding That Increased Respondent’s Sentence

C. No Contrary Result Is Compelled By Any Of This Court’s Precedents

D. The District Court Exceeded Its Constitutional Authority By Imposing Additional Punishment Upon The Respondent On The Basis Of Facts It Found By A Preponderance Of The Evidence At Sentencing

II. THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES SURVIVE AND APPLY, BUT THE JURY’S FACTUAL FINDINGS LIMIT RESPONDENT’S GUIDELINE RANGE

A. Blakely Does Not Invalidate The Sentencing Reform Act Or The United States Sentencing Guidelines As A Whole

B. While Courts And Congress May Adopt Jury Trial Procedures For Sentencing Facts In Future Cases, No Jury May Be Convened To Try Sentencing Facts In Respondent’s Case