Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that 1119-20 (9th Cir.2004) (rejecting as insufficient documents that “merely recite[d] the statutory section and title” without detailing the facts to which defendant pled); Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (noting, in a related context, that the documents in the record must establish that the defendant “necessarily admitted” the elements of the qualifying offense); Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 386, 391 (9th Cir.2006), as amended (concluding that the prior conviction was not established under the modified categorical approach where the judgment record did not establish that “the defendant” necessarily pleaded ... to the allegations in the original complaint) (emphasis added); Rebilas v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 783, 787 (9th Cir.2008), as amended ; Martinez-Perez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1022,
```
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 courts may consider a plea agreement and other documents contained in the record of conviction 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 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
E. holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.