Case ID: f-appx_334/html/0690-01.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. Manuel De Jesus MEDRANO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel De Jesus Medrano, Jr., also known as Chuy, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 08-40670, 08-40681
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 24, 2009.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Manuel De Jesus Medrano, Jr., appeals his jury-trial conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.

Medrano argues that his conviction was invalid because the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he possessed the particular quantity of marijuana alleged in the indictment. His argument is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he properly concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699-700 (5th Cir.2003). He raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.

Medrano also appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release for his prior conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the district court based its revocation sentence solely on his jury-trial conviction of possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. He reiterates that this conviction was invalid under Apprendi and asserts that the basis for the district court’s revocation sentence therefore was improper. He argues that remand is appropriate to permit the district court to reconsider and clarify its revocation sentence.

As detailed above, Medrano’s jury-trial conviction was validly obtained. The Government was not required under this court’s precedent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Medrano knowingly possessed more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Therefore, because there is no basis upon which to vacate Medrano’s jury-trial conviction and sentence, there are no grounds upon which to conclude that the revocation sentence was improper.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgments are 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.