With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Marcelino Ceja-Romero, an alien convicted by guil crime. State v. Albutt, 99 Wash. 253, 259, 169 P. 584 (1917). The Washington statute facially allows for a conviction where an actor with general criminal intent unintentionally touches another with an object that may be deadly under the circumstances — even if the force used is not necessarily violent in nature, as required by federal sentencing law. See Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128, 1133-34 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the government has failed to meet its burden to show that the statute of Ceja-Romero’s prior conviction is facially a crime of violence. The record does not include enough information to conduct a modified categorical analysis. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The government contends that Ceja-Romero’s

A: holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
B: holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report
C: holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report
D: holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error
C.