With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to “willfully and unlawfully entering] a building with the intent to commit theft” where the building was an “inhabited dwelling house [or other residential building] ... within the meaning of Penal Code section 460.” By pleading guilty, Rodriguez admitted the factual allegations in the indictment. See United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 852 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1995). Because Rodriguez’s conviction included the unlawful entry requirement absent in California’s statutory definition of burglary, his conviction meets the definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under Taylor and is, therefore, a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. n. l(B)(iii); see also Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d at 852-52 (<HOLDING>). Rodriguez’s alternate argument, that his

A: holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary
B: holding that a conviction under a divisible statute could not qualify as acca burglary pursuant to the modified categorical approach when there were no shepard documents to show that the crime of conviction was generic burglary
C: holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
D: holding that a california burglary conviction was burglary under a modifiedcategorical approach because velascomedina pled guilty where the indictment alleged unlawful entry
D.