Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 16-40335 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40335 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 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, Philip G. Gallagher, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rolando Rodríguez-Bautista raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. Nor is knowledge of drug type and quantity an element of an offense under either 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) or 21 U.S.C. § 960(a). See United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1978). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.