United States v. Reyes-Mendoza, 665 F.3d 165

Reyes-Mendoza pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b)(2).
He had a California Health and Safety Code § 11379.6 conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance.
The district court treated that conviction as a drug trafficking offense for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement, increasing his sentence by sixteen levels.
Reyes-Mendoza objected to the classification, and he was sentenced at the top of the 70–87 month range.
The court reviews preserved § 2L1.2 classifications de novo using a categorical approach, focusing on the statutory definition of the prior offense.
The panel held that § 11379.6 is broad enough to criminalize precursors, but not so broad as to always qualify as a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2; thus the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 11379.6 qualify as a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2?	Reyes-Mendoza argues broad scope of 11379.6 warrants enhancement.	Reyes-Mendoza contends the federal guideline’s 'manufacture' is narrower than the California statute.	No; the least-culpable act may fall outside § 2L1.2, requiring remand.
Is the term 'manufacture' in § 2L1.2 read to include precursor production with knowledge of future use?	Government asserts precursor manufacture can support enhancement via aiding and abetting.	Defendant argues precursor production without final product is not § 2L1.2 manufacturing and may be an attempt only if mens rea matches.	The plain meaning does not include precursor-only acts for § 2L1.2 purposes; not all precursor production falls within 'manufacture.'
Should the sentence be vacated and remanded for resentencing due to calculation error?	Not applicable; government did not establish harmless error.	N/A	Yes; the guideline calculation error was not harmless and the sentence is vacated and remanded.

United States v. Sandoval-Ruiz, 543 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2008) (strict categorical approach to § 2L1.2 interpretation)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court 1990) (plain meaning and scope of offenses for guidelines)
United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (least-culpable act must qualify as drug trafficking for § 2L1.2)
United States v. Forester, 836 F.2d 856 (5th Cir. 1988) (production of a precursor and attempted manufacture doctrines)
People v. Coria, 21 Cal.4th 868 (Cal. 1999) (knowledge that a precursor will be used to produce a controlled substance)
United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1976) (aiding and abetting requires completed offense)
United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997) (mens rea for attempt differs from California precursor statute)
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court 1992) (harmless-error standard for sentencing mistakes)
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (harmless error burden and standards in the Fifth Circuit)