With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the panel would have no reservations applying the categorical and modified categorical analysis to determine if § 311.11 was an aggravated felony. I see no principled difference between looking at the elements of the lawful general order underlying Aguilar-Turcios' convictions and looking at the elements of a state criminal statute. To conclude otherwise would be to render the immigration removal laws inapplicable to any alien subject to the UCMJ who is prosecuted for violating an order that would have been prosecuted as a removable crime had it occurred off the military base. 3 . Navarro-Lopez has created a dramatic turnabout on this issue in our circuit. Compare Aguila-Montes De Oca, 553 F.3d at 1234, and United States v. Sandon, 302 Fed.Appx. 719, 720-21 (9th Cir. Dec.5, 2008) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Franklin, 235 F.3d

A: holding that we need not remand to the bia so that it may apply the categorical approach
B: holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach
C: holding that application of the modified categorical approach did not establish a covered conviction where the judgment of conviction did not contain the factual basis for the crime
D: holding that the modified categorical approach cannot apply where the alien admitted his entry was unprivileged because arizona does not require a showing of unprivileged entry
D.