Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Camille Diane ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-17
Citations: 695 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: No. 17-40018 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Camille Diane ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 806–807

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Camille Diane ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-40018 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 17, 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, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Of fice, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Camille Armstrong appeals her conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. She asserts that the factual basis for her guilty plea was inadequate because the government failed to meet its obligation to prove that she had knowledge of the quantity of actual methamphetamine involved in her offense.
As Armstrong concedes, her 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 drug type and quantity as an element of a § 841 drug offense. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court' has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.