Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alejandro TORRES-LARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40723 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Alejandro Torres-Larraga appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams, that is approximately 7.28 kilograms, of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Torres-Larraga argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea conviction because the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he knew the type and quantity of drug involved in his offense.

As Torres-Larraga concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity as an element of a drug offense.

Accordingly, Torres-Larraga’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.