Morales v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 689, 2007 WL 10033 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) (defendant did not admit truth of facts stated in criminal court of appeals decision, deciding question of sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction, for purposes of inclusion in record of conviction to determine nature of conviction for immigration purposes, because admission was for limited criminal purposes only, and not in a way that is binding for the purposes of conviction and subsequent proceedings or for all future purposes; "No factual findings are actually made, and no admissions are entered into by the defendant. Instead, for the sole purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is presumed true. It was from this isolated context that the IJ drew the facts and circumstances of Morales's conviction. This is far different from relying on a charging document read in conjunction with a valid plea agreement, where a defendant admits the alleged facts in a way that is binding for the purposes of conviction and subsequent proceedings. See Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2003). Here, in her appeal, Morales did not admit the truth of the evidence presented by the State for all future purposes; she simply allowed the state appellate court to assume the truth of the State's evidence for the purpose of her challenge to its sufficiency.").