United States v. Strickland, 556 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (post-conviction sex-offender registration documents, signed by defendant in presence of witnesses, constituted sufficient admission of facts to qualify as "judicially noticeable facts" that may be used in a modified categorical analysis to determine whether a Maryland child abuse conviction was under the portion of the statute that involved sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of enhancing the sentence for conviction of receipt of child pornography).



The government in this case merely offered an uncertified docket sheet which showed a guilty plea to child abuse and which stated that Strickland was "a child sex offender," and sex offender registration documents showing that Strickland had registered as a sexual offender based on the Maryland conviction.



This opinion appears wrongly decided on many levels, but may be used significantly to broaden the modified categorical inquiry. The case must be reconciled with Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003), Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004), and Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 2006). These cases hold that 1) the court can only consider the "judgment record" rather than the "administrative record," in the modified categorical approach; 2) that judicial admissions in subsequent proceedings cannot be considered; and 3) that conditions of the sentence, such as domestic violence counseling, generally cannot be used to determine the elements of the offense of conviction.



In light of these cases, which were never cited in Strickland, immigration counsel can argue that the case has very limited application - that reliance on the docket sheet and subsequent registration as a sex offender was only appropriate because in Maryland (and apparently most if not all other jurisdictions) a person cannot be required to register as a sex offender unless the offense meets the elements of a sexual offense. See Cain v. State, 386 Md. 320 (2005). In other words, Strickland's reliance on suspect documents and "admissions" in those documents is only allowed because the act of registering necessarily demonstrates that the individual actually pleaded guilty to a sex - as opposed to some other - offense.