MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Vargas-Ochoa appeals from the district court’s judgment imposing a 60-month sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in viola*572tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Vargas-Ochoa contends that the district court committed plain error by relying only on the presentence report to apply a 16-level enhancement for his prior conviction for first degree residential burglary, in violation of California Penal Code §§ 459, 460. Specifically, Vargas-Ochoa contends that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his prior conviction was a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2. We agree.

Because the statute of conviction is broader than the definition of a “crime of violence,” see United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 393 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir. 2005), and there were no judicially-noticeable documents relied upon by the district court that established a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), see Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), application of the 16-level enhancement was plain error. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2003). The government will have the opportunity at resentencing to offer additional judicially-noticeable evidence to support the enhancement. See United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2004).

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.