The Ninth Circuit addressed whether a conviction for delivery of heroin under Revised Code of Washington § 69.50.401(a)(1)(i) was a “drug trafficking offense.”  The court held that the defendant had not show a realistic probability that the statute could covered the act of administering a drug.  He had identified any cases where the state had prosecuted someone for this conduct.  The court distinguished this from other overbroad statutes which specifically identified conduct in the plain wording of the statute that fell outside the federal generic definition, stating that the statute at issue "does not expressly include conduct not covered by the generic offense, but rather is silent as to the existence of a parallel administering exception."  Thus, the conviction could be properly characterized as a drug trafficking offense.  This case could have implications for immigration proceedings, where drug trafficking offenses can be classified as aggravated felonies or where a respondent can be found inadmissible if there is reason to believe he engaged in drug trafficking. 

The full test of US v. Borgos-Ortega can be found here: