are “at least fifteen years of age” if certain additional factors not at issue here are present. See id. Gomez argues that we should only look to the statutory language in subsection A. We disagree. Gomez was indicted for and convicted of violating Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1405 B. Therefore, our analysis is limited to that provision. Section 13-1405 B defines the victim as being either "at least fifteen” or "under fifteen.” Consequently, it is divisible with respect to the age of the victim, and, under the governing law in 2006, we may consider the indictment and plea agreement’s clear language showing that Gomez was charged with sexual conduct with "a minor under the age of fifteen.” See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2283-85
holding that courts may consider a plea agreement and other documents contained in the record of conviction when applying the modified categorical approach holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach holding that a court determining the character of an underlying crime using the modified categorical approach may consider inter alia the charging document and written plea agreement 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 holding modified categorical approach unavailable where the statute of conviction was missing an element of the generic definition