and 23153 are all included in a division of the vehicle code entitled “Sentencing for Driving While Under the Influence,” Cal. Veh.Code Div. 11.5, and that all three offenses share as an available punishment completion of an educational “driving under the influence” program. See Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23502(a), 23538(b), 23556(b)(1). That California’s lawmakers so frequently lump together consequences for driving under the influence and violations of section 23140 suggests that the legislature perceives a violation of that section as more serious than a juvenile status offense. It also suggests that section 23140 is not a mere status offense, but part of the state’s scheme for regulating driving under the influence. See also United States v. Gomez-Leon, 545 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Review of 1986 Selected California
recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law recognizing that under california law violating section 23140 is equivalent to driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the california vehicle code holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg  4b12a holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary