Opinion ID: 3065090
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a prior conviction need only be punishable by a

Text: prison term exceeding one year to qualify as a con- trolled substance offense, whereas, to qualify as a drug trafficking offense, the prison sentence imposed for a prior conviction must exceed thirteen months and (2) a prior conviction under “local” law can qualify as a conviction for a drug trafficking offense, whereas to qualify as a conviction for a controlled substance offense, the conviction must be under state or federal law. United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007). Neither of these differences is material to this case because a conviction under § 11351.5 arises under state law and is punishable by a prison term in excess of thirteen months. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351.5. Taken together, these cases support our conclusion that a conviction under § 11351.5 constitutes a “controlled substance offense” with respect to the career offender guideline.10 distribution, or dispensing of, or offer to sell a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv). 10 In addition, we held in United States v. Sandoval-Venegas that a prior conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11359, which criminalizes the possession of marijuana for sale, categorically constitutes a controlled substance offense as defined under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See 292 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002) (“California Health and Safety Code § 11359 comfortably fits within the Guidelines definition as a qualifying offense.”). Sandoval-Venegas, which addressed a state statute that is substantially similar to § 11351.5, lends additional support to our conclusion with respect to § 11351.5. 13006 UNITED STATES v. CHARLES [5] Charles nevertheless argues that courts must consider widely accepted common law defenses in determining whether a state law conviction is categorically a controlled substance offense. He argues that a conviction under § 11351.5 does not constitute a “controlled substance offense” under § 4B1.1 because § 11351.5 is categorically overbroad. Charles reasons that a defendant could be convicted under California law where he would not be convicted under federal law because the burdens of proof differ in relation to the defense of entrapment. Under California law, a defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. See People v. Mower, 49 P.3d 1067, 1081 (Cal. 2002). Under federal law, the defendant has an initial burden to prove government inducement, but the government has the ultimate burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 549 (1992); United States v. Ross, 372 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2004). Charles contends that § 11351.5 is overbroad because of these differing burdens and that, therefore, a conviction under § 11351.5 cannot constitute a controlled substance offense. Although he concedes it is not controlling here, Charles cites dicta from United States v. Gomez-Mendez, 486 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2007), in suggesting that we expand the categorical approach analysis to incorporate widely accepted defenses. In Gomez-Mendez, the defendant claimed that his state statutory rape conviction was not categorically a “crime of violence” because California did not recognize the affirmative defense that the defendant had a reasonable belief the victim was over sixteen. Id. at 603-04. We rejected the defendant’s claim and reiterated that under Taylor’s categorical approach the analysis requires only that “the state crime must include all of the elements of the generic federal crime.” Id. at 604 (citing United States v. Asberry, 394 F.3d 712, 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Under the categorical approach, we consider only the statutory elements of the offense . . . .”)). Although UNITED STATES v. CHARLES 13007 we assumed without deciding that Taylor also requires that a state crime incorporate “widely accepted affirmative defenses” under the categorical approach, we did so only to demonstrate that Gomez-Mendez’s claim would fail even if the categorical approach were expanded. Id. Thus, in GomezMendez, we applied the established categorical approach, which considers only the statutory elements of the state crime. Charles also relies on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Medina-Valencia, 538 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2008), from which he draws a rule that “an assessment of affirmative defenses is required under the categorical approach.” Charles misreads Medina-Valencia, which does not support Charles’s contention. In Medina-Valencia, the court considered whether a prior conviction under a state statute criminalizing sexual contact with a person under the age of seventeen constituted a crime of violence that would support a sixteen-level increase under the Guidelines. See id. at 833. The state statute at issue included a subsection that expressly incorporated affirmative defenses to the crime. Id. at 834. The court considered this statutory defense in conducting its categorical approach analysis, stating that “the affirmative defense helps define what conduct is prohibited by the statute.” Id. at 835. Contrary to Charles’s assertion, the Eighth Circuit considered only the statutory definition of the state law offense as prescribed by Taylor. See id. It did not hold generally that affirmative defenses are to be considered under the categorical approach. [6] Charles has not presented any controlling authority demonstrating that a court must consider widely accepted common law defenses when conducting a categorical approach analysis. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err. See De La Fuente, 353 F.3d at 769.