Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40360
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee v. G E R M O N M O N T R E L W IN S T O N , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 2 :08 :cr-0 0 7 4 6 -1
B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Ge r mo n Mo n t r e lW i n s t o n a p p e a l s h i s c o nv i c t i o n f o rt h r e e c o u n t s : t wo c ount s of

pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e c on trol l ed s ubst ance s und er21 U
. S
. C
. § 84 1 a n d o n e cou n t of con sp i ra cyto po sse ss w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e s unde r21 U
. S. C. §§ 846 and 8 41
. W i ns t o n a r gue s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntdi d no tpr o ve b e yo nd ar e as o nab l e do ubt t hat he kne w t he t yp e a nd qu an t i t y of

t h e drug s he possessed. B ecau se w e ha ve h e ld th a t “kn ow l edg e of t he dr ug t yp e a nd qua nt i t y i s no ta n e l e m e ntt hatm us tb e . . . pr o ve d” b e yo nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40360

2 are a s o n a b le d o u b t, w e a ffir m . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G am ez- G on zales , 319 F. 3d 695, 7 0 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. B et an court , N o. 08- 40909, 2009 W L 3233532, at*4 ( 5t h C i r . O c t . 9, 2009) (r e- af f i r m i ng G am ez- G on zalez). W i n st on , w h i l e drivi n g a t ract or- t rai l er r i g, pu l l ed i n t o t h e Sa rit a, T exas, Bor de rPat r o lc he c kpo i nt . As Cus t o m s a nd Bo r de rPr o t e c t i o n (“ C B P ” ) Age nt K av o nt e W i l s o n q ue s t i o ne d W i ns t o n, CB P Age ntM anue lO zun a w al ke d a detect i on cani n e aroun d the ri g. Th e dog aler t ed A gen tO zu n a to t h e t ract or porti on of

t h e veh i cl e. A g e n t W i l son d i rect ed W i n st on t o drive t h e ri g t o a s e c o nda r y i ns pe c t i o n a r e a, w he r e CB P ag e nt s c o nduc t e d as e c o nd c ani ne i n s p e c t i o n , e s c o r t e d W i n s t o n t o a wa i t i n g a r e a , a n d c o n d u c t e d a s e a r c h o f t he veh i cl e. C P B agen t s f ou n d 9 0 .6 k i l ogram s of m arij u an a, 3. 1 kil ogram s of cocai n e, $38 , 000 i n $20 bi l l s, an d a bott l e of “ S cent A w ay, ” w h i ch “c ou l d be u sed to try to m a sk the od or of m a rij u a n a . ” T h e g ra n dj u rych a rg ed W i n s to n w i th thre e cou n ts: ( 1 ) con sp i ra cyto po s s e s s w i t h t he i nt e ntt o di s t r ibute m ore t han f ive hund r e d g r am s o f c o c ai ne andm o r e t han f

i f t y kil o gr am s o f m ar ij uanai n v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U
. S. C. § 8 46 a nd § 8 4 1 (a)( 1 ) & (b)( 1 )( B ), an d18 U
. S
. C
. § 2; ( 2 ) p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te
m o re th a n fiv e h u n d re dg ra m s o f c o ca in e in v iola tion o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) & (b) ( 1) ( B) , and 18 U
. S. C. § 2; and ( 3) po s s e s s i o n w i t h i nt e nt t o di s t r ibut e m ore th a n fifty k il o g ra m s of m a riju a n a in v iola tion o f 2 1 U .S .C
. § 8 4 1 (a)(1) & (b)(1 )(B ),
an d 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2. Th e j u ry f ou n d W in sto n g u i l t y on al lcoun t s, an d W i n st on ap pe al e d. O n a ppe al , W i ns t o n a r gue s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntdi d no tpr o ve b e yo nd a
r e as o n abl e do ubtt hathe kne w t he s pe c i f i ct yp e s a nd q uant i t i e s o f dr ugs he poss e s s e d. W i ns t o n a c kno w l e dg e s t hatw e ha ve pr e vi o us l y he l d t hat“ e ven th o u g h th e d r u gty p e a n dq u a n tit ym u s t n o w b e p r o v e db e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t, kn ow ledge of

t he dr ug t ype and quantit y i s not an el em ent t hat m ustbe so p rov ed
. ” G am ez - G o nzales , 319 F
. 3dat 700 ( em ph asi s add ed). W i n st onN o. 09- 40360

3 argu es, h ow ever, t h at w e shou l d revi si tt h e G am ez- G on zales h ol di n g i n l i gh tof Flor es -Figu era v. Un i t ed S t ate s , i n whi c h t he Supr e m e Cour the l d t hatif t he G ove r nm ent c harge s a d efen d a n t w i th a v i olat i on o f18 U
. S
. C
. § 102 8A ( a) ( 1)

— t h e federalidenti t y t h ef tst atute— t h e G overnm en tm u st prove bey on d a reason able dou bt th a t “t h e defen da n tkn ew t h at th e m ean s of i dent i f i c at i on ati ss ue be l onged to a n ot herper so n. ” 129 S. C t . 1886, 1888–9 4 (2 0 0 9 ). I n B et an court , w e h eld th a t Flores - Figu eradi d n otovert u rnG am ezG on zales . S ee B et an court , 2009 W L 3233532, at*4
. Spec i f i c al l y, w e he l d t hat

“ t he s t r uct ure of

§ 841 i s di f

fer entf r om t hatof

§ 1028A ( a) ( 1) , ” and tha t “ [ a]
c om m on- se nse , nat uralr eadi ng of § 841 l eads t o the i nevi t abl e co ncl usi on t hat C ongr es s di d not i nt end f or t he w or d ‘ know i ngl y’ i n § 8 41( a) t o m odif y l anguage i n § 84 1 (b). ” Id
. a t* 5, * 6. Bec aus e G a m ez -G on zales p r e c lu d e s W in s to n ’ s o n ly
ar gum e nt , a nd B eta n co u rt af f i r m e d G am ez- G on zales ’ s hol d in g, w e af f i rm W i ns t o n’ s c o nvi c t i o n. AF F I RMED.