eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2019-01

United States v. Aris Vite-Garcia ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 18-40581      Document: 00514788139         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/09/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-40581                           January 9, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARIS LIZBETH VITE-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-11-1
Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Aris Lizbeth Vite-Garcia appeals her conviction for the importation of
500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.
She argues that the factual basis for her guilty plea was insufficient because
the Government did not prove that she knew the type and quantity of the
controlled substance involved in the offense.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-40581    Document: 00514788139    Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/09/2019
No. 18-40581
Seeking to preserve her argument for further appellate review, Vite-
Garcia concedes that it is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt,
    586 F.3d 303
    , 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009). In Betancourt, we 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
    21 U.S.C. §§ 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 Vite-Garcia knew the type and
quantity of the controlled substance involved in her drug importation offense.
In light of the foregoing, Vite-Garcia has filed an unopposed motion for
summary disposition.    Because her argument is foreclosed, her motion is
GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2