United States v. Randy Graves, 925 F.3d 1036

Graves was convicted of federal drug offenses (conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute) and the government filed a § 851 notice seeking a mandatory life sentence based on two prior felony drug convictions.
One of Graves’ prior convictions was under California Penal Code § 4573.6 (inmate possession of controlled substances), which the district court treated as a qualifying predicate felony drug offense and imposed a mandatory life term under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
Graves was sentenced to life; at sentencing the district court stated it would have imposed life even if it retained discretion, and therefore Graves did not submit mitigating materials (presentence interview or sentencing memorandum).
On appeal Graves argued that § 4573.6 is overbroad and indivisible and therefore cannot categorically qualify as a federal predicate drug-trafficking offense for § 851 enhancement purposes.
The Ninth Circuit concluded § 4573.6 is overbroad and, based on statutory text and California state decisions (notably People v. Rouser), is indivisible because the statute treats possession of multiple substances as a single offense (type of substance is a means, not an alternative element).
The court vacated Graves’ sentence and remanded for re-sentencing, allowing the district court to consider Graves’ submissions and any effect of the First Step Act; the opinion expresses no view on the appropriate new sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cal. Penal Code § 4573.6 is a categorical match to a federal "felony drug offense" for § 851 purposes	§ 4573.6 is overbroad and indivisible, so it cannot qualify	§ 4573.6 is divisible because the specific controlled substance is an element, so a conviction can qualify	Held for Graves: § 4573.6 is not divisible and therefore cannot serve as a § 851 predicate
Whether the categorical approach applies to § 851 enhancements	Categorical approach governs; must assess divisibility	Govt suggested categorical approach need not apply but conceded precedents use it	Court applies the categorical approach and divisibility analysis
Whether district court need not resentence because it said it would impose life anyway	Grave's failure to submit mitigation was due to court's mandatory finding; resentencing required to allow full consideration	Govt argued no remand needed because court would have imposed life under § 3553 factors	Held for Graves: vacate and remand so court may consider mitigation and First Step Act implications
Whether contemporaneous possession of multiple substances under § 4573.6 constitutes separate offenses	Type/number of substances are means, not separate elements; one offense covers multiple substances	Govt argued different substances reflect distinct elements for divisibility	Held for Graves: California law treats multiple substances as one offense (indivisible)

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (divisibility analysis: elements versus means)
Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying categorical approach and divisibility to California drug statutes)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (distinguishing elements from means; framework for modified categorical approach)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (discussing multiple crimes and elements/means distinction)
United States v. Figueroa-Beltran, 892 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2018) (examining state law sources when deciding divisibility)
Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing California statutes may criminalize substances not covered by federal law)
United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying categorical approach in § 851 context)
United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying categorical approach to determine whether prior convictions fall within federal offense classes)