After reviewing the briefs and the record, and listening to the able oral arguments, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in its application of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(c)(3)’s cross-reference to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1. The charged conduct falls within the ambit of both 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)(2). However, the district court should have stated under which statutory provision the *245 conduct fell, and we urge the district courts to do so in the future.

AFFIRMED.