NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

SAMUEL MARTINEZ III,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-50011

D.C. No. 

CR-21-00067-FLA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2024** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HINDERAKER,

***

District Judge.

 

FILED

MAY 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John Charles Hinderaker, United States District Judge

for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Samuel Martinez III appeals the district court’s imposition of an 130-month

sentence in connection with his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine. Martinez argues on appeal that the district court improperly

applied the career-offender enhancement under § 4B1.2(b) of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines because California’s controlled-substance statute under

which his predicate offense was charged, for possession of methamphetamine, is

overbroad as to the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). We review de novo

whether a prior conviction is a “controlled substance offense” under the

Guidelines. United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012). We

have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez argues on appeal that United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa is not

binding because Martinez’s text-based overbreadth argument was not before us in

Rodriguez-Gamboa. 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2020). Rodriguez-Gamboa said:

“Because we hold, as a matter of law, that California’s definition of

methamphetamine is a categorical match to the definition under the federal CSA,

district courts confronting the issue in the future need not repeat what occurred in

this case.” Id. at 1154 n.5. There, the California law prohibiting the “sale of both

the geometric and optical isomers of methamphetamine” was a categorical match

to the federal law even though the federal law “outlaw[ed] possession only of

2
methamphetamine’s optical isomers.” Id. at 1149–50. This was so because,

chemically, there was no such thing as a geometric isomer of methamphetamine. 

Id. at 1150. Therefore, there was no reasonable possibility that California would

prosecute anyone for possession of a geometric isomer. Id. at 1154. 

We decline to read Rodriguez-Gamboa as holding only that California’s

CSA statute is a categorical match because of the chemical structure of

methamphetamine, but as leaving open the possibility that it is not a categorical

match due to other arguments.1

 Rodriguez-Gamboa stated unequivocally that “as a

matter of law” the statutes were a categorical match and did not limit its holding to

its facts. Id. at 1154 n.5. It accordingly binds Martinez despite his text-based

arguments that California’s statute is overbroad as to the federal CSA. 

Although we articulated an exception to this holding for a defendant who

“point[s] to his own case or other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply

the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he argues,” id. (quoting

Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)), Martinez has not done so

on appeal. Therefore, the district court did not err in using Martinez’s prior

convictions under California law to apply the career-offender enhancement.

1

 This is dispositive, so we decline to reach Martinez’s other arguments on

appeal.

3
AFFIRMED.

4