Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Problem:deported after being convicted for "a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months." U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). In determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a "drug trafficking offense" under the Sentencing Guidelines, this court again utilizes the categorical approach. See, e.g., Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 691. Section 11379 does not qualify as a drug trafficking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) under the categorical approach. United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir.2004). Under the modified categorical approach, however, a Section 11379 conviction for the sale of amphetamine does qualify as a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. Corona-Rivera, 503 Fed.Appx. 500, 502 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 2040, 185
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants conviction for the sale of marijuana in violation of california health safety code 11360a was a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of ussg 2l12 (B) holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code 192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment (C) holding that the position of alltime health officer for a county was not an office within the meaning of section 1467 of the code of 1907 (D) holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b (E) holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of 1983
Solution:
holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code 192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment