Gamino v. United States

Background

The opinion states that Adrian Gamino filed, without a lawyer, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had received concurrent 240-month sentences in two criminal cases for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine.

Gamino argued that three prior convictions should not have counted as controlled-substance offenses and that his sentence was unlawfully increased as a result. The court gave the United States Attorney’s Office an opportunity to respond and gave Gamino an opportunity to file supporting legal arguments, but the opinion states that Gamino did not file that memorandum.

Analysis

The court held that Gamino’s three prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance for sale qualified as “drug trafficking offenses” under the federal sentencing guidelines. The convictions involved California Health and Safety Code § 11378, and the opinion states that methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance under California law.

The court applied the categorical approach, which evaluates the legal elements of the prior offense rather than the specific facts of the conviction. It relied on binding Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. Based on that precedent, the court concluded that the sentencing court properly classified Gamino as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and imposed the 240-month sentence.

The court also considered Gamino’s reliance on Sessions v. Dimaya and Johnson v. United States. It explained that Johnson invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause and that Dimaya invalidated a different residual clause defining a crime of violence as unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded that neither decision was irreconcilable with the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent because Gamino’s prior convictions were drug-trafficking offenses specifically enumerated in the guidelines, rather than offenses relying on the invalidated residual clauses.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that Gamino’s “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence” is DENIED. The clerk was directed to close the file.