was convicted “of violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389 of the [California] Family Code.” Although Petitioner was charged with “violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389,” he did not plead guilty “as charged in the Complaint,” see Vidal, 504 F.3d at 1087, or plead guilty to “violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389,” see United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 468 F.3d 604, 613 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that recitation of the statutory elements is insufficient to establish the nature of a prior conviction where the statute of conviction is overly broad). In such a circumstance, we have held that the modified categorical approach is not satisfied. See United States v. Lopez-Montanez, 421 F.3d 926, 931 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Kovac, 367 F.3d
holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration recognizing that a 2422b indictment that merely tracks the language of the statute without identifying an underlying statute may be insufficient holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime holding that boards findings were insufficient where they merely repeated language of relevant statute and rejecting claim that voting foims of the members of the board which also simply mirrored the language of the relevant statute without specific findings were findings sufficient to permit judicial review recognizing that where a defendant enters a plea to a crime without having been informed of the crimes elements  the plea is invalid 