Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Raaf Atrach, 12-41254 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 12-41254 Visitors: 48
Filed: Dec. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-41254 Document: 00512473113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 17, 2013 No. 12-41254 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAAF ATRACH, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-599-1 Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A
More
     Case: 12-41254       Document: 00512473113         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2013




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2013
                                     No. 12-41254
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAAF ATRACH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:11-CR-599-1


Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Raaf Atrach raises an
argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 
586 F.3d 303
, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity
is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The appellant’s motion
for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.



       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer