Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Vianet MARTINEZ-MONTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-25
Citations: 697 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 17-40102 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Vianet MARTINEZ-MONTES, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 428–428

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Vianet MARTINEZ-MONTES, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40102 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed September 25, 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, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Vianet Martinez-Montes appeals her guilty plea to one count of importing five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. 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 particular type and quantity of controlled substance involved in her offense.
As Martinez-Montes concedes, her argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009). There we 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 drug offense. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.