United States v. Martinez-Lopez, No. 14-50014 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit took this case en banc to revisit the divisibility of California drug statutes. Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The en banc court held that California Health and Safety Code 11352 is divisible with regard to both its controlled substance requirement and its actus reus requirement. Therefore, the district court properly applied the modified categorical approach and correctly found that defendant pled guilty to selling cocaine, which qualified as a drug trafficking offense under the federal sentencing guidelines and subjected defendant to a 16-level enhancement to his base offense level. Furthermore, the 77-month sentence, based on a properly calculated guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, was substantively reasonable.
Court Description: Criminal Law The en banc court affirmed a sentence in a case taken en banc to revisit the divisibility of California drug statutes in light of recent guidance from the United States Supreme Court. The en banc court held that California Health and Safety Code section 11352, which criminalizes a variety of activities related to certain controlled substances identified by reference to other code provisions, is divisible with regard to both its controlled substance requirement and its actus reus requirement. The en banc court held that the district court therefore properly applied the modified categorical approach, and in doing so, correctly found that the defendant pled guilty to selling cocaine, which qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under the federal sentencing guidelines and subjects him to a 16-level enhancement to his base offense level. The en banc court concluded that the sentence imposed, based on a properly calculated guidelines range, is substantively reasonable.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 26, 2016.
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.