statute can be compared.” Rojas, 728 F.3d us state and federal statutes, the formal categorical approach presumptively applies. Evanson, 550 F.3d at 290. However, where a statute lists alternative elements that implicate the same criminal behavior, an IJ may use the modified categorical approach and review a limited set of docu ments, including “the criminal information,” to determine what underlying conduct supported the finding of guilt. Id. at 291-93. Similar to a statute that includes alternative elements, the New York drug schedules delineate the various controlled substa employed the modified categorical approach in consulting the criminal information to determine the precise drug involved in Baboolall’s 1998 conviction. See Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 462 F.3d 287, 292 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Baboolall argues that the record of
holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint holding a downward departure  may be appropriate for a relatively young defendant with a brief criminal career holding that we may appropriately examine the criminal complaint if departure from the formal categorical approach is appropriate holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that a formal summons and complaint were unnecessary because the motion before the court is not an independent action