The decision rests primarily on the rule that "the absence of an indictment constitutes a jurisdictional defect and cannot be waived by a guilty plea," Op. at 7, a principle long established in the Circuit. See United States v. Macklin, 523 F.2d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 1975). Here, although there was an indictment, "there [was] no valid indictment for the crime for which Corboba was convicted" and sentenced, since it did not allege a specific quantity of drugs. Op. at 9 (emphasis in original). As the Court explains,
"[A] violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) with no specified quantity of drugs constitutes a different crime than 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) with a specified quantity of drugs, and the applicable statutory penalties vary accordingly. By sentencing Cordoba to a term of imprisonment longer than twenty years, the District Court effectively convicted him of a crime for which he had not been indicted. [And] pursuant to Macklin, the guilty plea settling the issue of quantity cannot serve as a waiver."
Op. at 9. The Court thus concludes that "when a defendant is indicted for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 without a specified quantity of drugs, the defendant's allocution to a particular quantity cannot serve to waive the failure to indict him for the separate crime of violation of § 841 with a particular quantity of drugs. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than the statutory maximum set forth in § 841(b)(1)(C) for violation of § 841(a) without a specified quantity." Op. at 7.