The record of conviction includes “the charge (indictment[, complaint, information, citation, or other charge to which a plea or verdict was obtained]), plea, verdict and sentence.  The evidence upon which the verdict was rendered may not be considered, nor may the guilt of the defendant be contradicted.”[223]  These and additional documents that have been specifically found to be part of the record of conviction are discussed below.  See § § 4.22-4.27, infra.  The record of conviction may also contain additional documents, that would not normally be considered part of the record of conviction, if those documents have been incorporated into the guilty plea or verdict.[224]

[223] Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F.2d 757, 759 (2d Cir. 1933).  Accord, Matter of Short, 20 I. & N. Dec. 136, 137-38 (BIA 1989) (including indictment, plea, verdict, and sentence in “record of conviction”); Matter of Esfandiary, 16 I. & N. Dec. 659, 661 (BIA 1979) (including charge or indictment, plea, verdict, and sentence in “record of conviction”); Matter of Ghunaim, 15 I. & N. Dec. 269, 270 (BIA 1975) (including charge or indictment, plea, judgment or verdict, and sentence in “record of conviction”), holding modified by Matter of Franklin, 20 I. & N. Dec. 867 (BIA 1994); Matter of C, 5 I. & N. Dec. 65, 71 (BIA 1953).  See also Wadman v. INS, 329 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1964); Matter of Esfandiary, 16 I. & N. Dec. 659 (BIA 1979) (malicious trespass information charged intent to commit petty larceny).

[224] Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. July 11, 2005) (“Although police reports and complaint applications, standing alone, may not be used to enhance a sentence following a criminal conviction, Shepard, 125 S.Ct. at 1257, 1259-60, the contents of these documents may be considered if specifically incorporated into the guilty plea or admitted by a defendant. United States v. Smith, 390 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (approving use of “the factual basis for the charge, as set forth by the prosecutor at the change of plea hearing” to which “defense counsel did not object”); United States v. Lopez-Patino, 391 F.3d 1034, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2004) (admissions the defendant made at his plea colloquy); Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2004) (restitution order referenced in a plea agreement).”).

RECORD OF CONVICTION - ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT - DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON CALIFORNIA ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING SENTENCE IMPOSED SINCE DOCUMENT UNEQUVOCALLY CONTAINED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION
United States v. Sandoval-Sandoval, 487 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. May 23, 2007) (per curiam) (district court at sentencing properly relied on California abstract of judgment, for purpose of imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) in reliance on a factual finding that Defendant had been convicted earlier of "a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months," since the document unequivocally contained the information needed), distinguishing United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004) (district courts may not rely on an abstract of judgment to determine the nature of a prior conviction for purposes of analysis under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), since the documents contain insufficient information for that purpose; case did not hold court may not rely on abstracts at all), and following United States v. Valle-Montalbo, 474 F.3d 1197, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court properly relied on abstract of judgment, in combination with the charging document, for the purpose of determining whether a defendant had a qualifying conviction under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).).

Ninth Circuit

RECORD OF CONVICTION
Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) (the record of conviction includes "only the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or ... some comparable judicial record of this information. Id. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. A comparable judicial record includes a document (such as a minute order) prepared by a neutral officer of the court, provided that the defendant has the right to examine the document and challenge its accuracy. See United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2008) (en banc) (per curiam)").

RECORD OF CONVICTION - ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT - DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON CALIFORNIA ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING SENTENCE IMPOSED SINCE DOCUMENT UNEQUVOCALLY CONTAINED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION
United States v. Sandoval-Sandoval, 487 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. May 23, 2007) (per curiam) (district court at sentencing properly relied on California abstract of judgment, for purpose of imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) in reliance on a factual finding that Defendant had been convicted earlier of "a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months," since the document unequivocally contained the information needed), distinguishing United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004) (district courts may not rely on an abstract of judgment to determine the nature of a prior conviction for purposes of analysis under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), since the documents contain insufficient information for that purpose; case did not hold court may not rely on abstracts at all), and following United States v. Valle-Montalbo, 474 F.3d 1197, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court properly relied on abstract of judgment, in combination with the charging document, for the purpose of determining whether a defendant had a qualifying conviction under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).).

Eleventh Circuit

RECORD OF CONVICTION - SENTENCING CONTEXT
United States v. Llanos-Agostadero, _486 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. May 15, 2007) (per curiam) ("Generally, in determining whether a prior conviction is a qualifying offense for enhancement purposes, we apply a "categorical" approach-that is, we look no further than the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 2159-60, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990); United States v. Aguilar-Ortiz, 450 F.3d 1271, 1273 (11th Cir.2006). But where the judgment of conviction and statute are ambiguous, "we remand for the district judge to look at the facts underlying a state conviction." Aguilar-Ortiz, 450 F.3d at 1273. In examining the facts underlying a prior conviction, the district court is generally limited to relying only on the "charging document[s], written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented." Id.; Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 19-26 125 S.Ct. 1254, 1259-63, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005).").