N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SAM UEL M A R TINEZ III,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 23-50011

D.C . No. C R -21-00067-FLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando L. Ae nlle -R oc ha , Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

M ay 17, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd HINDER

A KER , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAY28 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble John C ha

rle s Hinde ra k e r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de s igna tion.Sa m

ue l M artine z III a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

n 130-m onth
se nte nc e in c onne c tion with his ple a of guilty to posse ssion with inte

nt to distribute
m e tha m phe tam ine . M artine z argue s on a ppe a l tha t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly
a pplie d the c are e r-offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 4B 1.2(b) of the Unite d State s Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s be c a use C a lifornia ’ s c ontrolle d-substa nc e sta tute unde r whic h his pre dic ate offe nse wa s c ha rge d, for posse ssion of m e tha m phe tam i ne , is
ove rbroa d a s to the fe de ra l C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t (C SA). W e re vie w de novo whe the r a prior c onvic tion is a

“ c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse ” unde r the Guide line s. Unite d State

s v . Le al-Ve

ga , 680 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th C ir. 2012). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a ) and 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. M artine z argue s on a

ppe a l tha t U nite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z-Gamboa i s not binding be c a

use M artine z ’ s te xt-ba se d ove rbre a dth a rgum e nt wa s not be fore us in Rodrigue z-Gamboa
. 972 F.3d 1148 (9th C ir. 2020). Rodrigue z-Gamboa sa id:

“ B e c a use we hold, a s a

m a tte r of la

w, tha t C a lifornia ’ s de finition of
m e tha m phe tam ine is a

c a te goric a l m a tc h to the de finition under the fe d e ra l C SA, distric t c o urts c onfronting the issue in the future ne e d not re pe at what oc c urre d in this c a s e .” Id. a t 1154 n.5. There , the C a l ifornia la w prohibiting the

“ sa le of both the g e om e tric and optic a l isom e rs of m e t ham phe tam ine ” wa s a c a te goric a l m a tc h to the fe d e ra l la

w e ve n though the

fe d e ra l la w “ outla w [e d] posse ssion only

of
2m e tha

m phe tam ine ’ s optic a l isom e rs.” Id. a t 1149–50. This wa s so be c a use , c he m ic a lly , the re wa s no suc h thing a s a ge om e tric isom e r of m e t

ham phe tam ine
. Id. a t 1150. The re fore , the re wa s no re a sona b le possibility

tha t C a lifornia

would prose c ute any one for posse ssion of a ge om e tric isom e r. Id. a t 1154. W e de c line to re a d Rodrigue z-Gamboa a s holding only that C a lifornia ’ s C SA sta tute is a c a te goric a l m a tc h be c a

use of the c he m i c a l struc ture of
m e tha m phe tam ine , but a s le a v i ng ope n the possibility tha t it is not a c a te goric a l
m a tc h due to othe r argum e nts. 1 Rodrigue z-Gamboa s tate d une quivoc a lly that “ a s a m a tte r of la

w” the sta tute s we re a

c a te goric a l m a tc h a

nd did not lim

it its holding to its fa c ts. Id. a t 1154 n.5. It a c c ordingly binds M artine z de spite his te xt-ba se d
argum e nts tha

t C a l ifornia ’ s sta

t ute is ove rbroa d a s to the fe de ra l C SA. Although weartic ulate d a n e xc e ption to this holding for a de fe nda nt who

“ point[s] to his own c a s e or othe r c a se s in whic h the sta te c ourts in fa c t did a

pply the s tat ute in the spe c ia l (nonge ne ric ) m anne r for whic h he argue s ,” id. (quoting Gonzale s v . Due nas-Alv are

z , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)), M artine z ha s not done so on a ppe a l
. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not e rr in using M artine z ’ s prior
c onvic tions unde r C a l i fornia la w to a pply the c are e r-offe n de r e n ha

nc e m e nt.

1 This is dispositive , so we de c line to re a c h M artine z ’ s othe r argum e nts on a ppe a l. 3AFFIRM E D.

4