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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. FR ANC ISC O JAVIER

M ANZO-R IOS, AKA Franc isc o M anz o , AKA Fra nc isc o Javie r M anz o,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50429

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00552-ODW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Fra nc isc o Ja vie r M anz o-R ios a

ppe a ls his c onvic t ion for be ing a de porte d a lie n found in the Unite d Stat e s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326(a).



# FIL ED MAR 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1. W e re je c t De fe nda

nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his 2006 re m ova l orde r wa s inva lid. An im m igration judge (" IJ" ) found tha t De fe n da nt wa s subje c t to re m o va l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i) be c a use of his 2005 c onvic tion for posse s sion of a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e , in viola

tion of C a lifornia

He a lth a nd Sa fe t y C ode
se c t ion 11350(a). B e c a

use not e ve ry

viola tion of tha

t sta tute " re late s to" a fe de ra lly c o ntrolle d substa

nc e , se c tion 11350(a

) is c ate goric a l ly

ove rbroa d. M e l louli v. Ly

n c h, 135 S. C t. 1980, 1990–91 (2015). B ut, se c tion 11350(a ) is divisible . Se e Unite d State s v. M artine z -Lope z , 864 F.3d 1034, 1036–37 (9th C i r. 2017) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 11352 is divisible ). 1 The re le va

nt portions of se c tions 11350(a ) and 11352 a

re ide ntic a l. In de te rm ining that De fe nda nt’ s c onvic tion qua lifie d a s a c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse unde r the
m odifie d c ate goric a l a

p p roa c h, the IJ took into evide nc e a c rim ina l c om

pla int a nd
an a b stra c t of judgm e nt showing tha t De fe n da nt wa s c onvic te d

for posse ssion of
c oc a ine , a fe de ra lly c ontrolle d substa

nc e . The IJ pe rm issibly

re lie d on those doc um e nts in c onduc ting the m odifie d c ate goric a l a na ly sis. R am ire z -Villa lpa ndo

1 In his ope n ing brie f, De fe nda nt a rgue d tha t § 11350(a) is not divisible . W e issue d our opinion in M a

rtine z -Lope z a fte r that brie f wa s file d, but be fore De fe nda nt file d his re ply

brie f. In his re ply

brie f, De fe nda

nt a ppe ars to c onc e de that M artine z -Lope zfore c lose s his a rgum e nt tha

t se c tion 11350(a

) is not divisible
. 2v. Holde r, 645 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). Ac c ordingly , De fe nda nt’ s
re m ova l orde r wa s va lid. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err by ba rring De fe nda

nt from introduc i ng
e vide nc e tha

t his gra ndm othe r wa s a

natura l -born c itiz e n of the Unite d State s. Give n the othe r e vide nc e be fore the distric t c ourt, e vide n c e of De fe nda nt’ s gran dm othe r’ s c itiz e n ship sta tus ha d m inim a l proba

tive va lue with re spe c t to the issue of De fe nda

nt’ s a lie na ge . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e xc luding thee vide nc e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 403. Se e Unite d State s v. Espinoz a -B a z a , 647 F.3d 1182, 1189–91 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding that the distric t c ourt ha d not a buse d its disc re tion by

e xc luding the de fe nda

nt’ s
e vide nc e of his gra

n dfathe r’ s c i tiz e nship sta

tus be c a use " the re c ord [wa ] s de void of
anything tha

t link[e d] the grandfathe r’ s . . . sta t us with the

re quire m e nts for de rivative c itiz e nship" ). The e xc lusion of the e vide nc e did not viola

te De fe nda

nt’ s
c onstitutiona

l right to a

m e aningful opportunity

to pre se nt a

de fe nse . Id. at 1188. AFFIRM E D.

3