With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The defendant in Navidad-Marcos was charged under § 11379 of the California Health and Safety Code, which this court has concluded “punishes a full range of conduct encompassed by the statute, which might not constitute an aggravated felony.” Id. at 906. The government argued that the description of the crime contained in the abstract of judgment indicated that Navidad-Marcos pled guilty specifically to the transportation and sale of a controlled substance, which is an aggravated felony. Id. at 909. We rejected the government’s argument, stating that it is “equally plausible, if not more probable, that the abbreviation in the form merely summarized the title of the statute of conviction rather than- — -as the government would have us presume — a conscious judicial nar th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, the abstract of judgment listing the

A: 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
B: holding that the abstract of judgment does not reliably establish the content of the conviction when it was the only judicial record  the government produced
C: holding that the abstract of judgment coupled with the information furnished sufficient proof that the defendant was convicted of all the elements of the generic crime of burglary
D: holding that evidence of the same name the fact that the previous conviction occurred in precinct of defendants residence and that although the defendant testified he did not deny that he was the person described in the record of the previous conviction was sufficient to establish identity
B.