965-66 (2d Cir. 2008); see, e.g., United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285, 287-89 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lee, 704 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2012). A state law may sweep broader than the federal generic predicate if the state bans substances that federal law does not. Several courts of appeals have held that state laws which ban substances that are not listed in the schedules of the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) are categorically broader than the generic Guidelines “drug trafficking offense.” United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 642 F.3d 658, 661 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Lopez-Cano, 516 Fed.Appx. 350, 353 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 684 (9th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Leiva-Deras, 359 F.3d 183, 189 (2d Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). The elements of a predicate “drug trafficking
holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute recognizing that the terms controlled substance offense and drug trafficking offense have nearly identical ussg definitions and using past decisions interpreting drug trafficking offense to analyze a challenge involving a controlled substance offense because the issues raised in those past decisions were closely analogous to the issue in the present case holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking