United States v. Christopher Curi

680 F. App'x 324
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2017
Docket16-20416 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 680 F. App'x 324 (United States v. Christopher Curi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Christopher Curi, 680 F. App'x 324 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Daniel Curi pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more .of cocaine, in violation, of ' 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government failed to prove that he had knowledge of the particular type and quantity of drugs involved in his offense.

As Curi 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 an § 841 offense. See also United States v. Mata, 513 Fed.Appx. 401, 402 (5th Cir. 2013) (relying on Betancourt to reject as foreclosed a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction). 1

Accordingly, Curi’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.

1

. Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996, is not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez
319 F.3d 695 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
Ballard v. Burton
444 F.3d 391 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Betancourt
586 F.3d 303 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States
556 U.S. 646 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Martin Mata
513 F. App'x 401 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
680 F. App'x 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-christopher-curi-ca5-2017.