Case ID: f-appx_359/html/0487-01.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. George Richard CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40210
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 31, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A jury found George Richard Chapman guilty of possession with intent to distribute 5.9 kilograms of cocaine. He now appeals his conviction and resulting 121-month prison sentence. Chapman argues that, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the specific type and quantity of controlled substance he possessed. In the alternative, Chapman asserts that the district court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to find that he knew the specific type and quantity of drug he possessed.

These issues are foreclosed by current circuit precedent, see United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699-700 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that knowledge of drug type or quantity is not an element of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841), which has not been overruled by Flores-Figueroa. See United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.