or “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” under Rule 201(b)(2). The underlying facts relevant to the adjudication of this-case — what notice procedures the DEA used, whether Horner had actual notice, and so on — do not remotely fit the requirements of Rule 201. Courts may take judicial notice of some public records, including the “records and reports of administrative bodies.” Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir.1953). The DEA is an “administrative body,” but that does not mean that all evidence related to this case — such as the handwriting on an envelope mailed to the DEA — fits within the judicial notice exception. Cf. Pina v. Henderson, 752 F.2d 47, 50 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if the government’s attached
recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court holding that cjourts may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute holding that the existence of prior convictions are typically matters of public record of which the trial court can take judicial notice without violating the defendants right to due process holding that the existence and content of a police report are not properly the subject of judicial notice holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice