USA v. Valentin Trejo-Dominguez, No. 13-40009 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-40009 Document: 00512250818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-40009 Summary Calendar May 22, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. VALENTIN TREJO-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1321-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Valentin Trejo-Dominguez pleaded guilty to Count Two of a four-count indictment, a charge of importing into the United States 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1)(H). He was sentenced within the guidelines range to 168 months of imprisonment. Represented by the Federal Public Defender, Trejo-Dominguez raises an argument that he correctly concedes is foreclosed by circuit precedent in order to preserve the issue for further review. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40009 Document: 00512250818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2013 No. 13-40009 Knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841, see United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), nor is such knowledge an element of an offense under the related 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). Accordingly, the Government was not required to prove that TrejoDominguez knew the type or quantity of drugs involved. See United States v. Puente-Vasquez, 34 F. App x 962, 962 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (§§ 841(a)(1), 952(a), 960(a)(1)). The appellant s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 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.