United States v. Graves, No. 16-50276 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseDefendant challenged his life sentence imposed by the district court after it concluded he had two prior felony drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's life sentence and held that his prior California Penal Code section 4573.6 conviction for inmate drug possession did not qualify as a predicate offense triggering a mandatory term of life imprisonment under section 841(b)(1)(A), because the statute was overbroad, criminalizing controlled substances under California law that are not regulated under federal law. The panel also held that the statute was indivisible and could not be a categorical felony drug offense. Finally, the panel held that the district court should be permitted to consider defendant's submissions and impose a new sentence thereafter.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a life sentence, which the district court imposed after concluding that the defendant had two prior felony drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2016); and remanded for re-sentencing. The defendant argued that the district court erroneously concluded that his prior conviction for inmate drug possession under California Penal Code § 4573.6 (2007) qualified as a “felony drug offense” triggering a mandatory term of life imprisonment under § 841(b)(1)(A). The panel held that § 4573.6 is overbroad because it criminalizes controlled substances under California law that are not regulated under federal law. In light of the statute’s plain text, state court decisions, and the contrast to convictions under the California Health and Safety Code, the panel held that § 4573.6 is not divisible. The panel therefore concluded that a conviction under § 4573.6 cannot be a categorical “felony drug offense” triggering the mandatory life term under § 841(b)(1)(A). The panel concluded that the district court should be permitted to consider the defendant’s submissions and impose a new sentence, notwithstanding that the district court indicated at the previous sentencing hearing that it would have imposed a life sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors even if the defendant was not subject to a statutorily UNITED STATES V. GRAVES 3 mandated life sentence. The panel wrote that the district court may consider at re-sentencing what effect, if any, the recently enacted First Step Act has on the defendant’s sentence.
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.