Pena

MEMORANDUM **

Victoriano Dejesus Pena appeals his 211-month sentence, principally arguing that the district court erred in finding that he was a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines, see United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm the sentence because we conclude that the district court’s “career offender” determination was proper.

Pena argues that he should not have been designated a “career offender” because his two prior convictions under California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5 do not fall within the definition of a “controlled substances offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). The state statute, he argues, punishes conduct that is both within and without the definition of a “controlled substances offense” under the sentencing guidelines. He thus concludes that his convictions under this provision cannot support the district court’s finding that he was a “career offender.”

We disagree that Pena’s convictions under California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5 do not constitute “controlled substances offenses” under § 4B 1.2(b) of the sentencing guidelines. We…