Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50306/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Efrain Huitron-Rocha
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EFRAIN HUITRON-ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50306

D.C. No.

3:13-cr-00621-BEN-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

October 8, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed November 7, 2014

Before: David M. Ebel,*

 Andrew J. Kleinfeld,

and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Graber

* The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior Circuit Judge for the United

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 Case: 13-50306, 11/07/2014, ID: 9305261, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 5
2 UNITED STATES V. HUITRON-ROCHA

SUMMARY**

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed a sentence for reentry after removal

and without permission, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, in a

case in which the district court, applying the modified

categorical approach, concluded that the defendant’s prior

conviction for possession and transportation of cocaine for

sale, in violation of California Health and SafetyCode section

11352(a), was for a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).

The panel held that because there is no meaningful

distinction, for purposes of divisibility, between section

11352(a) and the California drug laws at issue in Coronado

v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014) (§ 11377(a)), and

United States v. De La Torre-Jimenez, No. 13-50438 (9th Cir.

Nov. 7, 2014) (§ 11351), section 11352(a) is divisible and the

modified categorical approach applies. The panel rejected the

defendant’s argument that Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), is to the contrary.

COUNSEL

Erick L. Guzman, Law Office of Erick L. Guzman, Santa

Rosa, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-50306, 11/07/2014, ID: 9305261, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 2 of 5
UNITED STATES V. HUITRON-ROCHA 3

Alex W. Markle (argued), Special Assistant United States

Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant United States

Attorney, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, and

Laura E. Duffy, United States Attorney, San Diego,

California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Efrain Huitron-Rocha appeals his 41-month

sentence following a guilty plea to one count of reentering the

United States after removal and without permission, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Applying the modified

categorical approach, the district court concluded that

Defendant’s prior conviction for possession and

transportation of cocaine for sale, in violation of California

Health and Safety Code section 11352(a), was for a “drug

trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). On

appeal, Defendant argues for the first time that the district

court erred by using the modified categorical approach

because section 11352(a) is not a “divisible” statute within

the meaning of Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276

(2013). Whether we review de novo or for plain error, we

conclude that no error occurred. California Health and Safety

Code section 11352(a) is “divisible,” and the modified

categorical approach applies. Accordingly, we affirm.1

 

1

 The government argues, in the alternative, that Defendant waived his

right to appeal. We assume, without deciding, that the appeal waiver is

not valid. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th

Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that an appeal waiver does not affect our

jurisdiction to hear an appeal).

 Case: 13-50306, 11/07/2014, ID: 9305261, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 3 of 5
4 UNITED STATES V. HUITRON-ROCHA

In Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 983–85 & n.4 (9th

Cir. 2014), we held that California Health and Safety Code

section 11377(a) is divisible within the meaning of

Descamps, because the statute contains a “listing of

alternative controlled substances” and because California law

confirms that the controlled substance is an essential element

of the crime. In an opinion filed concurrently with this one,

we hold that, because California Health and Safety Code

section 11351 is materially indistinguishable from section

11377(a), Coronado controls and the modified categorical

approach applies. United States v. De La Torre-Jimenez, No.

13-50438 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014). There, we also reject the

defendant’s argument that our decision in Rendon v. Holder,

764 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), is to the contrary. De La

Torre-Jimenez, slip op. at 7–9.

The same reasoning applies with equal force to the statute

at issue here: California Health and Safety Code section

11352(a). Like sections 11351 and 11377(a), section

11352(a) covers a list of controlled substances2and is

governed by the same general California law applicable to

sections 11351 and 11377(a). Because there is no meaningful

 

2

 California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a) covers

(1) any controlled substance specified in subdivision

(b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of

Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20)

of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, or specified in

subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in

subdivision (h) of Section 11056, or (2) any controlled

substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V which is

a narcotic drug . . . .

See also De La Torre-Jimenez, slip op. at 7 n.1 (listing the substances

covered by sections 11351 and 11377(a)).

 Case: 13-50306, 11/07/2014, ID: 9305261, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES V. HUITRON-ROCHA 5

distinction, for purposes of divisibility, between section

11352(a) and the California drug laws at issue in Coronado

and De La Torre-Jimenez, we hold that section 11352(a) is

divisible and that the modified categorical approach applies. 

Defendant does not challenge the way in which the district

court analyzed the modified categorical approach, if the

statute is, as we hold, divisible.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-50306, 11/07/2014, ID: 9305261, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 5 of 5