**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 4061** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee , v. JUAN ANGEL BACA
- ARIAS , Defendant

- Appellant .
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville . James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 4:13

- cr - 00012

- D
- 1 )
Submitted : December 31, 2014 Decided: January 12, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge . Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion . Debor r ah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May
- Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States Attorney s , Raleigh, Nor th Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Juan Angel Baca

- Arias pled guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and was sentenced to forty

- six months of imprisonment. On appeal, Baca

- Arias challenges the sixteen

level enhancement to his base offense level , arguing that his California conviction for possession of marijuana for sale is not a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of th e illegal reentry Guideline. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (201 3 ). Baca

- Arias also challenges his indictment and conviction for illegal reentry on the basis of the five

- year statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282(c ) (2012) . We affirm. When a defendant challenges the district court’s calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range , we review the district court’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Medina

- Campo , 714 F.3d 232, 234 (4th Cir.) , cert denied , 134 S. Ct. 280 (2013) . To determine whether a state conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) , courts use a “categorical approach,” comparing the state offense to an offense listed in the INA . Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678, 1684 (2013); Medina

- Campo , 714 F.3d at 235. A state drug trafficking crime satisfies the categorical3 approach when it “ ‘necessarily’ proscribe[s] conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA . . . ‘necessarily’ prescribe[s] felony punishment for that conduct.” Moncrieffe , 133 S. Ct. at 1685. Baca

- Arias’s conviction of possessing marijuana for sale, under California Health and Safety Code § 11359, qualifies categorically as a n aggravated felony under the INA and, therefore, is a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Martinez

- Rodriguez , 472 F.3d 1087, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11359 “categorically qualifies as a ‘drug trafficking offense’ under the Guidelines”); see also United States v. Maroquin

- Bran , 587 F.3d 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2009) ( not ing that a California statute that prohibits the sale of marijuana “pro perly triggers the sixteen

- level sentencing enhancement”). Therefore, the district court properly enhanced Baca

- Arias’ s offense level. Turning to Baca

- Arias’ s statute of limitations argument, we first note that he did not assert this defense in the distri ct court. I t has long been the law in this Circuit that a valid guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses. United States v. Willis , 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993) .

“ The statute of limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 is not jurisdictiona l. It is an affirmative defense that may be4 waived.” United States v. Matzkin , 14 F.3d 1014, 1017 (4th Cir. 1994 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ). In this case Baca
- Arias waived the nonjurisdictional statute
- of

- limitations defense by entering a valid guilty plea . See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732

- 33 (1993) (“Deviation from a legal rule is ‘error’ unless the rule has been waived.”) ; United States v. Claridy , 601 F.3d 276, 284 n.2 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a claim for relief is not review abl e on appeal when it is waived) . Accordingly, we affirm Baca

- Arias’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid t he decisional process. AFFIRMED