The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an order Wednesday certifying a question to the California Supreme Court that could reshape how federal courts interpret state drug convictions for sentencing purposes. The certification arises from two consolidated cases, United States v. Soto and United States v. Reid, where defendants challenge career offender enhancements under federal sentencing guidelines.
The central legal question involves California Health & Safety Code § 11378, which criminalizes possession of listed controlled substances. The Ninth Circuit seeks clarification on a crucial procedural requirement that could determine whether prior convictions under this statute qualify for enhanced federal sentences under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1.
Specifically, the appeals court asks whether California prosecutors must prove, and juries must unanimously agree, that defendants possessed the actual listed controlled substance rather than an analog as defined under California Health & Safety Code § 11401. The alternative interpretation would allow convictions based on proof of possession of either the actual substance or an analog, without requiring unanimous jury agreement on which specific substance was involved.
This distinction carries significant consequences for federal sentencing. Under the federal career offender enhancement, defendants with qualifying prior convictions face substantially longer prison terms. The enhancement applies to defendants who have at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses and are convicted of another felony that is a crime of violence or controlled substance offense.
The certification order, filed Jan. 8, 2026, involves defendants Anthony Valentino Soto and Stephen Reid, both challenging their classification as career offenders based on prior California drug convictions. Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Mark J. Bennett, and Jennifer Sung comprise the three-judge panel handling the consolidated appeals.
Soto's case originated as No. 23-4072, stemming from D.C. case 5:22-cr-00021-RGK-1, while Reid's case is No. 24-3903, arising from D.C. case 2:23-cr-00391-JAK-1. Both defendants argue their prior California convictions should not qualify for the federal sentence enhancement.
The procedural posture reflects the complexity of federal-state interactions in criminal sentencing. Federal courts regularly must interpret state law elements to determine whether prior convictions qualify for federal enhancements. However, when state law remains unclear or when federal courts disagree about state law interpretation, certification to state supreme courts provides definitive answers.
Certification procedures allow federal appeals courts to pause their proceedings and seek authoritative interpretation from state high courts on questions of state law. This process ensures federal courts apply state law correctly while respecting state sovereignty over interpretation of state statutes.
The question certified here touches on fundamental principles of jury unanimity and prosecutorial burden of proof. In criminal cases, prosecutors typically must prove each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and juries must reach unanimous verdicts on each essential element.
The analog provision in California Health & Safety Code § 11401 defines controlled substance analogs as substances with substantially similar chemical structures and effects to listed controlled substances. This creates potential ambiguity about whether prosecutors must specify which exact substance a defendant possessed or whether proving possession of either the actual substance or an analog suffices.
For federal sentencing purposes, this distinction matters because career offender enhancements require qualifying predicate offenses. If California allows convictions without unanimous agreement on the specific substance possessed, federal courts must determine whether such convictions meet federal enhancement requirements.
The Ninth Circuit's certification request demonstrates careful attention to ensuring accurate interpretation of California law. Rather than guessing about California legal requirements, the federal appeals court seeks definitive guidance from the state's highest court.
This approach reflects broader trends in federal criminal law, where courts increasingly scrutinize the elements of state predicate offenses for federal enhancement purposes. Recent Supreme Court decisions have emphasized the importance of categorical analysis in determining whether prior convictions qualify for federal sentence enhancements.
The California Supreme Court's eventual response will likely influence not only the immediate cases involving Soto and Reid but also future federal prosecutions involving California Health & Safety Code § 11378 convictions. The decision could affect numerous defendants facing federal charges with similar prior state convictions.
The certification order represents a significant pause in the defendants' appeals while awaiting California Supreme Court guidance. Once the state court responds, the Ninth Circuit can resume proceedings with definitive interpretation of the relevant California law provisions.
The outcome may also influence prosecutorial practices in California, potentially clarifying charging and jury instruction requirements for Health & Safety Code § 11378 cases. Federal certification questions often prompt state courts to examine their own statutory interpretation practices.
This case exemplifies the intersection between state and federal criminal law, where state conviction elements determine federal sentencing consequences. The resolution will provide important guidance for courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys navigating similar issues involving California drug convictions and federal sentence enhancements.