946 F.3d 548
9th Cir.2019Background:
- Francisca Rodriguez-Gamboa was convicted in California (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378) for possession for sale of methamphetamine; that conviction supported an administrative removal order and her later § 1326 prosecution for illegal reentry.
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the § 1326 information, then Lorenzo v. Sessions (9th Cir.) held California’s methamphetamine definition includes geometric isomers, making it broader than the federal Controlled Substances Act definition.
- Relying on Lorenzo I, the district court allowed Rodriguez to withdraw her guilty plea and dismissed the information; the government appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit withdrew Lorenzo I and issued a non-precedential disposition (Lorenzo II) allowing the government to renew the factual argument that geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not exist.
- The government contends any textual difference is illusory because geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not exist; the district court never resolved that factual question and Rodriguez relied on Lorenzo I below.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the withdrawal of the plea, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for the district court to make a factual finding on whether geometric isomers of methamphetamine exist (retaining jurisdiction).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in permitting withdrawal of Rodriguez’s guilty plea after intervening precedent. | Withdrawal not warranted / dismissal unjustified (opposed plea withdrawal). | Lorenzo I invalidated the predicate removal, so withdrawal is a fair and just reason. | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; intervening precedent justified withdrawal. |
| Whether California’s definition of "methamphetamine" is categorically broader than the federal definition (i.e., do geometric isomers exist?). | Any apparent overbreadth is illusory because geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not exist; CA and federal definitions are effectively the same. | Textually, CA law expressly includes geometric isomers and is broader; Lorenzo I supports that conclusion. | Not decided on appeal: remanded to district court to resolve the factual question whether geometric isomers exist; dismissal vacated and jurisdiction retained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluded California methamphetamine definition includes geometric isomers and is broader than the federal definition)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (use textual comparison to assess categorical match between state and federal offenses)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (requires a "realistic probability" state law will reach conduct outside the federal generic definition)
- United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (textual breadth of a state statute can establish realistic probability of overbroad application)
- United States v. Ochoa, 861 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2017) (procedural requirements for collateral attack on deportation)