NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. GUILLERMO ELOY ALAMOS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50382 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00056-RGK-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 12, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Guillermo E. Alamos was convicted of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1826, and challenges the district court’s application of a 16-level sentencing enhancement based on a prior drug trafficking convi ction, as well as the substantive 

# FILED
JUL 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).reasonableness of his sentence. Reviewing th e district court’s analysis of the prior drug conviction de novo, United States v. Laurico-Yeno , 590 F.3d 818, 820 (9th Cir. 2010), and the substantive reasonableness of its sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, United States v. Vasquez-Perez , 742 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. 1. Alamos first argues that California Health & Safety Code § 11351 is “indivisible” under Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2284 (2013). However, we recently held that the modi fied categorical analysis applies to a statute that, like § 11351, sets forth potentia l offense elements in the alternative. Coronado v. Holder , No. 11-72121, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 3537027, at *4–5 (9th Cir. July 18, 2014) (analyzing California Health & Safety Code § 11377). Alamos concedes that Coronado , if correctly decided, forecl oses his argument. We agree and Coronado is now binding precedent. 2. In applying modified categorical analysis, we may examine the charging document, the terms of the plea agreement, the transcript of the plea colloquy, and other records of comparable reliability. United States v. Lee , 704 F.3d 785, 788–89 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, count two of the charging document alleged Alamos violated § 11351 by “posse ss[ing] for sale and purchas[ing] for sale a controlled substance, to wit COCA INE.” The abstract of judgment indicates
2that Alamos pled guilty to count two. We have held that where “the abstract of judgment . . . specifies that a defendant pl eaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.” Cabantac v. Holder , 693 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), amended and reh’g denied 736 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2013). Application of Cantabac here compels the conclusion that Alamos was convictedof a “drug trafficking offense,” for purposes of the CSA and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1 )(A). In sum, the district court did not err by applying the disputed enhancement. 3. Alamos was sentenced to 60 months, 17 months below the district court’s Guidelines calculation of 77 to 96 months. He relies on United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez , 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009), as well as his familial ties and cultural assimilation, to argue that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. In Amezcua-Vasquez , defendant was sentenced to 52 months for illegal reentry nearly fifty years after obtaining legal permanen t residency and over twenty years after completing a sentence for assault that was stale for sentencing purposes. Id. at 1052. In this case, less than 15 years pa ssed between Alamos’ deportation, and his arrest for illegal reentry. In the meantim e, however, he has had repeated brushes with the law for parole violations, add itional state offenses, and a prior illegal

3reentry. Under the circumstances, the se ntence imposed by the district court was not substantively unreasonable. AFFIRMED.

4