N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R YAN ZAPANTA NALANGAN, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-71123 Age n c y No. A098-250-473
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, M . SM ITH, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. C oronado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 977 (9th C ir. 2014), re quire s tha t we a pply the m odifie d c a te goric a l a pproa c h to de te rm ine whe t he r R y an Na la n ga n’ s
c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 11377(a) is a re m ova b le offe nse . Id. at 981, 983. 

# F IL ED
APR 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 4

2. Unde r the m odifie d c a te goric a l a p proa c h, the gove rnm e n t ha s not m e t its burde n of proving by

c le ar a n d c onvinc ing e v ide nc e tha t Na la nga n wa s c onvic te d of posse ssing m e t

ham phe tam ine
. Se e Me dina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th C ir. 2014). Thec om pla int, whic h c ha

rge d Na la nga n with a fe l ony viola tion of § 11377(a

), is the only

doc um e nt tha

t spe c ifie s tha

t m e tha m phe tam ine
wa s the drug a

t issue
. Ne ithe r the c ourt m inute s nor the m isde m e anor a dvise m e nt of rights doc um e nting Na la n g an’ s no c o nte st ple a

m e ntions whic h drug Na la nga n posse s se d. The gove rnm e nt a rgue s tha t we c an none the le s s infe r the drug of
c onvic tion be c a

use the c ourt m inute s re fe r to C ount 1 of thec o m p la int. W he re a “ m inute orde r spe c ifie s tha t a de fe nda nt ple a de d guilty

to a pa rtic u la r c ount of thec rim ina l c om pla i nt . . . we c an c onside r the fa c ts a lle ge d in that c ount.” C

abantac v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 787, 793–94 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r
c uriam ). B ut the gove rnm e nt m ust c le arly

and c onvinc ingly

e sta blish a link be twe e n the c om

pla int a nd ple a doc um e nts to justify

re lia n c e on the c om

pla int, a nd
e ve n slight differe nc e s be twe e n the two c a n c a st doubt on tha

t link. In Me dinaLara , the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to c arry its burde n whe re the c om pla int inc lude d

“ C ount 3” but the ple a wa s to “ C ount 3A,” be c a use it wa s “ pla

usible ” tha

t the “ A” stood for “ am e nde d.” 771 F.3d a t 1114–15. This wa s de spite the fa c t tha t “ the
re c o rd doe s not c onta in a

ny se rious sugge stion tha t [the pe titione r] wa sPa ge 3 of 4

a ppre h e n de d with a

ny substa n c e othe r tha

n one c ontrolle d by

fe de ra l la w.” Id. at 1115; se e also Alvarado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th C ir. 2014) (holding that we c ould not c onside r the c ha rging pa pe rs whe re the origina l c ha rge wa s for posse s sion but where the ple a for atte m pte d posse ssion re fe rre d to “ Modifie d C ount One ” (e m

pha sis a d de d)). Diffe re nc e s be t

we e n Na la nga n’ s c ha rging a nd ple a doc um e nts simila

rly pre c lude us from

finding a c le ar and c onvinc ing link be twe e n the doc um e nts. W hile the c ourt m inute s origina lly re fe rre d to “ C OUNTS 1) F11377(A) HS” in the
c om pla i nt, tha t e ntry is c rosse d out a

nd “ M 11377(a ) HS” is ha ndwritte n ne xt to it. The re a son for the c ha

nge is a ppa re nt; c ontra

ry to the origina l c ha

rge , Na la nga n ple a de d no c o nte st to a

m i sde m e anor, rathe r tha

n a fe lony , viola

tion of § 11377(a

). It is the re fore “ pla

usible ” tha

t the c ha rge wa s a m e nde d a nd, unde r M

e dina-Lara , the g ove rnm e nt ha s the re fore fa ile d to m e e t its burde n of c le arly and c onvinc ingly
e sta blishing tha

t we m ay re ly on the c om

pla int to de te rm ine the drug of c onvic tion. 771 F.3d a

t 1114–15. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w, va c a te the orde r of re m ova l, a nd re m and the m a tte r to the B IA for disposition c onsiste nt with this m e m orandum
. The gove rnm e n t sha ll be ar the c osts for this petition for re vie w.Pa ge 4 of 4

PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; O RDE R O F RE M O V AL V ACAT E D; AND RE M ANDE D.N

alangan v . Holde r, No. 10-71123 C a lla ha n, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. The c ha

rging doc um e nt a l le ge d tha t Na la nga n viola te d C a lifornia

He a lth & Sa fe ty

C o de § 11377(a) by

posse ssing
m e tha m phe tam ine . Se c tion 11377(a ) is a “ wobble r” whic h m ay re sult in e ithe r a fe lony or m isde m e a

nor c onvic tion, a

nd Na la nga n ple d no c onte st to a m isde m e anor
c onvic tion of § 11377(a

). The re is no indic at ion tha t the re wa s a

ny que stion a s to the s ubsta nc e he ille ga lly

posse sse d or tha

t a ny c ount wa s dism isse d whe n Na la nga n ple d no c o nte st. The re c ord of c onvic tion shows tha t Na la nga n ple d guilty to the spe c ific c ount a lle ge d in the c ha rging doc um e nt, a

nd the c ount wa s sim ply re duc e d from

fe lony m e tha m phe tam ine posse ssion to m isde m e anor
m e tha m phe tam ine posse ssion. For the se re a s ons the re c ord in this c a se is not
am biguous, in c ontra st to Me d ina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1114–15 (9th C ir. 2014), a

nd Alv arado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th C ir. 2014). I would the re fore de ny Na la

nga n’ s pe tition. 

# F IL ED
APR 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS