UNPUBLISHED

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborrah 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 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 sixteenlevel 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 the illegal 

reentry Guideline. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (2013). 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 categorical 
3

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 an 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) (noting that a California 

statute that prohibits the sale of marijuana “properly 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 district court. It 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 

jurisdictional. It is an affirmative defense that may be 
4

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 

reviewable 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 the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED