In the context of an illegal reentry case, the Ninth Circuit once examined the California drug schedules. The petitioner argued that federal regulations exclude Meth-L found in pharmaceutical products from the federal statute, but that California's drug statutes did not include such an exception. Thus, the petitioner argued that California's definition of methamphetamine is overbroad. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding no realistic probability that California would criminalize acts involving an excluded product containing Meth L.
The full text of US v. Vega-Ortiz can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/06/14-50100.pdf