under the age of sixteen (3) who is at least four years younger than the defendant. Generic statutory rape does not have, as an element, a mens rea requirement of “knowingly.” Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1405 is missing the four-year age difference element of the generic offense of statutory rape. Therefore, Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405, even the “under fifteen” version, is missing an element of generic “statutory rape” and generic “sexual abuse of a minor.” Thus, a conviction under the statute is not categorically a conviction for a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). Because the statute is missing an element of these generic crimes, our inquiry ends here — we do not undertake a modified categorical analysis. Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2283, 2292 (<HOLDING>). “Because of the mismatch in elements, a
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 holding that the modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes that contain an  indivisible set of elements sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic offense meaning that the statute of conviction has an overbroad or missing element holding that a prior conviction is not a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines if the statute that provides the basis for the prior conviction sweeps more broadly than the generic crime described in the guidelines 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