USA v. Christopher Curi, No. 16-20416 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-20416 Document: 00513906502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20416 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 10, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff–Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER DANIEL CURI, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-160-1 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 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 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20416 Document: 00513906502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2017 No. 16-20416 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 FloresFigueroa 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 an § 841 offense. See also United States v. Mata, 513 F. App’x 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. Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996, is not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority.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). 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
