Andres Sanchez-Medina (Sanchez) appeals the 41-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. He argues that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based upon the California felony complaint and abstract of judgment evidencing his prior conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378.

This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Sanchez’s conviction under § 11378 is not categorically a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2, we must employ the modified categorical approach to determine whether his prior conviction warranted the enhancement. See id. at 793-94 (adopting the reasoning of United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 687 (9th Cir. 2012)).

*407 The district court was entitled to rely upon the charging document for the § 11378 offense to determine whether it constituted a drug trafficking offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). Sanchez does not deny that the felony complaint, which charged him with possessing methamphetamine for sale, is the final charging document; because nothing in the record affirmatively casts doubt upon, or creates ambiguity regarding, whether the felony complaint constitutes the charging document, the district court did not clearly err in finding that it did. See Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d at 795-96.

AFFIRMED.