Court Opinion

ID: 899667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-11 23:38:09.811048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:14.998096
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                 JUN 10 2013

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50549

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03083-AJB-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORENZO GALINDO-VEGA,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                  Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted June 3, 2013
                              Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       The information, abstract of judgment, and minute entry together

demonstrate that Galindo-Vega previously pleaded guilty to possession for sale of

heroin in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11351. Heroin is a

controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
See 21 U.S.C. § 812. Thus, applying the modified categorical approach, Galindo-

Vega’s prior conviction qualifies as a “drug trafficking offense” for the purposes of

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2. United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d

1160, 1162, 1167-69 (9th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Snellenberger, 548

F.3d 699, 701-02 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Young

v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

      Galindo-Vega argues (relying on Young) that the nature of the drug he

possessed is not a necessary element of his prior crime and, therefore, was not

admitted in his plea. We disagree. Young instead addressed the scope of a plea’s

factual admissions only where the charging document is conjunctively phrased.

See 697 F.3d at 986-87. Unlike the charging document in Young, Galindo-Vega’s

information was not conjunctively phrased. The information stated that Galindo-

Vega “did unlawfully possess for sale and purchase for sale a controlled substance,

to wit, heroin.” Accordingly, Galindo-Vega’s information is very similar to the

charging document in Leal-Vega, which charged the defendant with possession of

“a controlled substance, to wit, TAR HEROIN.” 680 F.3d at 1162. As in Leal-

Vega, we conclude that the abstract and minute entry made clear that Galindo-Vega

pleaded guilty to possession of heroin, see United States v. Lee, 704 F.3d 785, 790-

                                          2
91 (9th Cir. 2012); Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d at 1168, and Galindo-Vega’s reliance on

Young is misplaced.

        Thus, because Galindo-Vega was previously convicted of a drug trafficking

offense, and his sentence for that prior conviction exceeded thirteen months, the

district court properly imposed the § 2L1.2 enhancement. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d at

1163.

        AFFIRMED.

                                         3