Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0326-01.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. Yair PARROQUIN-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41355 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 13, 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, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Yair Parroquin-Luna pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 920.9 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 80 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government did not prove that he knew the type and quantity of the drugs involved in the offense.

As Parroquin-Luna concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009). It 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 a Section 841 offense. See United States v. Gil-Cruz, 808 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2015) (relying on Betancourt to reject as foreclosed a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction).

Accordingly, Parroquin-Luna’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R 47.5.4.