Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
475(c) is not categorically a forgery offense. See Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 877 (9th Cir.2008). Therefore, Ramirez’s crime cannot be an aggravated felony under the categorical approach. If a state statute is “categorically broader than the generic definition of a crime,” as here, we then apply the modified categorical approach. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (applying a two-step analysis, using first a categorical approach and then a modified categorical approach). However, because California Penal Code § 475(c) is missing an essential element of the generic forgery offense, we may not analyze this case under a modified categorical approach. Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) . For the foregoing reasons, Ramirez has not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding modified categorical approach unavailable where the statute of conviction was missing an element of the generic definition
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 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 courts may consider a plea agreement and other documents contained in the record of conviction when applying the modified categorical approach
E. holding that the modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes that contain an  indivisible set of elements sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic offense meaning that the statute of conviction has an overbroad or missing element
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.