Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0324-01.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. Christopher Daniel CURI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-20416 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 10, 2017
    
      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, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Daniel Curi pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more .of cocaine, in violation, of ' 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government failed to prove that he had knowledge of the particular type and quantity of drugs involved in his offense.

As Curi 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 the drug type and quantity as an element of an § 841 offense. See also United States v. Mata, 513 Fed.Appx. 401, 402 (5th Cir. 2013) (relying on Betancourt to reject as foreclosed a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction).

Accordingly, Curi’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996, is not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4).