UNITED STATES v. LAGUNA GOMEZ (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Bogar LAGUNA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 18-40042

Decided: July 25, 2018

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. 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, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Oscar Bogar Laguna-Gomez pleaded guilty to importing into the United States 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1), (b)(1). He was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Laguna-Gomez 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 type and quantity of the controlled substance involved in his offense.

As Laguna-Gomez 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 trafficking offense. Likewise, knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element that must be proven for an offense under the related drug importation statutes of § 952(a) and § 960(a). United States v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1978); see United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, the Government was not required to prove that Laguna-Gomez knew the type and quantity of the controlled substance involved in his drug importation offense.

Accordingly, Laguna-Gomez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.