United States v. Leal-Vega
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10848
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Leal-Vega was convicted in California for possession for sale of tar heroin under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 in 1999.
- He later pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 in 2010.
- The district court declined to apply a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on the 1999 conviction.
- The Government appealed, arguing § 11351 qualifies as a drug trafficking offense either categorically or via a modified categorical analysis.
- The district court found § 11351 not categorically a drug trafficking offense and found the record insufficient for a modified categorical fit; the court imposed a 30-month sentence.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that § 11351 is not categorically a drug trafficking offense but is a valid predicate under the modified categorical approach, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11351 is categorically a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. | Government contends § 11351 fits the federal CSA definition. | Leal-Vega argues § 11351 is overbroad and not a CSA-listed substance offence. | No; § 11351 is not categorically a drug trafficking offense. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach can establish a predicate under § 2L1.2 for Leal-Vega’s conviction. | Government argues the record supports a § 2L1.2 enhancement. | Leal-Vega contends the record undercuts a proper modified categorical reading. | Yes; the record (charging document, minute order, abstract of judgment) establishes possession of tar heroin and supports a 16-level enhancement. |
| Whether any sentencing error was harmless enough to foreclose remand. | If the error is harmless, no remand is needed. | Remand is required unless the error is clearly harmless. | Harmless-error relief does not apply; remand for resentencing is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (Taylor framework for categorical vs. modified categorical analysis)
- Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (cat. and immig. law — §11377 and overbreadth concerns)
- Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2009) (California §11352 overbreadth in immigration context)
- S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2010) (implications for state statutes and CSA alignment)
- Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (categorical analysis methodology for predicates)
- Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2008) (modified-categorical approach using clerk's minute order)
- Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2011) (availability of abstract of judgment in modified CAT)
- Sanchez-Garcia, 642 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (CSA-based interpretation of California §11378)
- Benitez-De Los Santos, 650 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. 2011) (assumes CSA applies for predicate)
- Hudson, 618 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2010) (counterfeit substance as ordinary meaning)