the portion of the statute under which Balderas-Rubio was convicted now corresponds to subsection (A)(4). For ease of explanation, we will hereinafter refer to this portion of the statute as “Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1123(A)(4).” 3 . The district court provided little analysis for its determination that Balderas-Rubio's prior conviction was a crime of violence, and it is therefore unclear how the district court arrived at that determination. But to the extent the district court based its determination solely on the description of Balderas-Rubio’s conduct set forth in the bill of information, without first examining the conduct proscribed by Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1123, the district court's analysis was flawed. See, e.g., United States v. Torres-Diaz, 438 F.3d 529, 534-37 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The government’s assertion that
holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction recognizing that a court may look to the charging document in making a crime of violence determination but only where the statute provides disjunctive methods of committing the offense and the court needs to determine which of the statutory alternatives is involved in the particular case recognizing that courts may look beyond the statutory text to determine legislative intent only when the statute is ambiguous holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc  16