Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): deported after being convicted for “a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). In determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a “drug trafficking offense” under the Sentencing Guidelines, this court again utilizes the categorical approach. See, e.g., Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 691. Section 11379 does not qualify as a drug trafficking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) under the categorical approach. United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir.2004). Under the modified categorical approach, however, a Section 11379 conviction for the sale of amphetamine does qualify as a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. Corona-Rivera, 503 Fed.Appx. 500, 502 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2040, 185 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants conviction for the sale of marijuana in violation of california health  safety code  11360a was a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of ussg  2l12 (B) holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code  192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment (C) holding that the position of  alltime health officer for a county was not an office within the meaning of section 1467 of the code of 1907 (D) holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b (E) holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983
Output (English): holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code  192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment