United States v. Corrall

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40390
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Lupe Corrall,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-186-2

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Lupe Corrall appeals his conviction of conspiracy to possess with
intent to manufacture and distribute more than 50 grams of actual
methamphetamine. Relying on McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186, 194
(2015), he argues that the factual basis is insufficient to support his guilty plea

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-40390 Document: 00515670176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020

No. 20-40390
2
because there is no indication that he knew the type of controlled substance
involved in the offense and no evidence suggesting that he participated in
manufacturing methamphetamine. He also argues that the indictment is
defective because it does not protect him from future prosecution for the
same conduct at issue here.
Because Corrall did not object to the sufficiency of the factual basis
underlying his guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). To show plain error,
Corrall must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects his
substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
Corrall shows such an error, we may correct the error only if it seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
The factual basis, as affirmed by Corrall, established every element of
the underlying conspiracy. See United States v. Ochoa, 667 F.3d 643, 648 (5th
Cir. 2012). This court has long held that knowledge of the type and quantity
of a controlled substance is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) offense.
United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699–700 (5th Cir. 2003). It
is not clear or obvious that McFadden’s holding extends beyond the
Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act or that it changes this
court’s precedent in non-analogue cases. See McFadden, 579 U.S. at 188–89.
Given Corrall’s admissions at rearraignment, he has not shown that the
district court plainly erred in determining that there was a sufficient factual
basis underlying the conspiracy offense. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
Regarding Corrall’s second issue on appeal, generally, an
unconditional guilty plea like Corrall’s waives all non-jurisdictional defects
in the trial court proceedings that occurred before the entry of the plea and
are unrelated to the plea’s voluntariness. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,
266–67 (1973); Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1983). Corrall’s
Case: 20-40390 Document: 00515670176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020

No. 20-40390
3
challenge to the indictment’s sufficiency is not jurisdictional and does not
implicate any of the exceptions to the general waiver rule. Therefore,
Corrall’s unconditional guilty plea waived this challenge.
1
See Smith, 711
F.2d at 682.
AFFIRMED.

1
The government contends that the appeal waiver in Corrall’s plea agreement
precludes his challenge to the indictment’s sufficiency. Because we conclude that Corrall’s
unconditional guilty plea waived this challenge, however, we need not address the
applicability of the appeal waiver.
Case: 20-40390 Document: 00515670176 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2020