eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2018-07

United States v. Oscar Laguna-Gomez ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 18-40042      Document: 00514570807         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/25/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-40042                            July 25, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
OSCAR BOGAR LAGUNA-GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-1209-1
Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
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
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 18-40042    Document: 00514570807     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/25/2018
No. 18-40042
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 
    (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.
2