Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador BARAJAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-15
Citations: 714 F. App'x 478
Docket Number: No. 17-40988 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador BARAJAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 478–479

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador BARAJAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40988 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 15, 2018
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 DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Barajas, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). Barajas argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because it did not establish that he knew the type and quantity of the controlled substance involved in his offense.
However, Barajas has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition correctly conceding that this issue is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009), and explaining that he has raised the issue only to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Barajas's motion is GRANTED. The district court's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.