USA v. Yair Parroquin-Luna, No. 16-41355 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-41355 Document: 00513951675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41355 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED April 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. YAIR PARROQUIN-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16-CR-122-1 Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Yair Parroquin-Luna pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 920.9 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 80 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41355 Document: 00513951675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 No. 16-41355 Government did not prove that he knew the type and quantity of the drugs involved in the offense. As Parroquin-Luna concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308–09 (5th Cir. 2009). It 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 Section 841 offense. See United States v. Gil-Cruz, 808 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2015) (relying on Betancourt to reject as foreclosed a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction). Accordingly, Parroquin-Luna’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 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.