Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-21
Citations: 694 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 17-40012 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40012 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed July 21, 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, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Medina appeals his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He asserts that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he had knowledge of the particular type and quantity of controlled substance involved in his offense.
As Medina concedes, his 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 the drug type and quantity as an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.