MEMORANDUM* Thomas Reilley appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He contends: (1) the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague because it uses the term ""cocaine,"" rather than ""cocaine hydrochloride;"" and (2) the indictment was deficient because it charged him with possession of ""cocaine"" rather than possession of ""cocaine hydrochloride."" Reilley also argues that the district court erred: (1) by failing to state specific reasons for imposing a sentence in the middle of the guideline range; (2) by refusing to recommend that Reilley be placed in a shock incarceration program pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4046; (3) by refusing to depart downward from the guideline range because of the general severity of drug offense sentences; and (4) by imposing a sentence that is too severe based on the nature and extent of the defendant's participation in the crime. We have no jurisdiction to review the district court's choice of a sentence within the applicable guideline range. United States v. Pelayo-Bautista, 907 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir. 1990). With regard to Reilley's other challenges, we affirm.