Gamino v. United States

Background

Adrian Gamino filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentences in two criminal cases and the related civil case. The court had sentenced him to concurrent 240-month terms for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine. Gamino argued that his sentence was unlawfully increased in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sessions v. Dimaya and Johnson v. United States. He filed the motion without a lawyer and did not submit the supporting legal memorandum the court had allowed him to file.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the sentencing court properly classified Gamino as a career offender. Gamino had three separate convictions for possessing a controlled substance for sale under California Health and Safety Code § 11378. Applying the required categorical approach—a method that examines the legal elements of the prior offense rather than the facts of the particular conviction—the court concluded that those convictions qualified as drug-trafficking offenses under the federal sentencing guidelines.

The court rejected Gamino’s argument that Johnson or Dimaya changed that result. Johnson invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, and Dimaya invalidated a similarly vague definition of a crime of violence. The court explained that Gamino’s prior convictions were drug-trafficking offenses specifically covered by the sentencing guidelines, not offenses classified under the invalidated residual clauses. The court therefore found that controlling Ninth Circuit precedent remained applicable.

Ruling

The court denied Gamino’s motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence in Case No. 11-cr-00595-HSG-1, Case No. 11-cr-00596-HSG-2, and Case No. 19-cv-01880-HSG. It directed the clerk to close the civil case. The order was signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.