United States v. Mario Gonzalez-Zavala

693 F. App'x 330

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2017
• Docket: 17-40120 Summary Calendar
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Mario Gonzalez-Zavala pled guilty to importing into the United States 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1). He was sentenced to 175 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Gonzalez-Zavala now 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 types and quantities of controlled substances involved in his offense.

As Gonzalez-Zavala 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 drag 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 two related drug importation statutes, §§ 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 Gonzalez-Zavala knew the drug types and quantities involved in his drug importation offense. See United States v. Zuniga-Martinez, 512 Fed.Appx. 428, 428-29 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a similar challenge to a conviction for importing a controlled substance as foreclosed by Betancourt, Restr&po-Granda, and Valencia-Gonzales).

Accordingly, Gonzalez-Zavala’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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.