(9th Cir.2007). In his pro se brief, Jimenez-Carrillo contends that his prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a) and California Penal Code Section 273a were not aggravated felony convictions for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Subsequent to Jimenez-Carrillo’s sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Lopez v. Gonzales, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 625, 633, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), in which it held that “a state offense constitutes a ‘felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act’ only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law.” Because Section 11377(a) does not qualify as a drug trafficking offense under Lopez, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Figueroa-Ocampo, 494 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, as the government concedes, the
holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings holding that the right applies at capital sentencing in particular holding descamps and mathis divisibility analysis applies in immigration proceedings nationwide to the same extent that it applies in criminal sentencing proceedings holding that lopez applies to criminal sentencing holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines