for rehearing regarding the sufficiency of Matthews’s objection to the application of the ACC enhancement. We conclude that the district court erred in sentencing Matthews as an Armed Career Criminal because it failed to analyze the statutes under which Matthews was previously convicted to determine whether they satisfied the elements of a “generic burglary” under Taylor. As we recently explained in United States v. Franklin, 235 F.3d 1165, 1170 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2000), Taylor requires that, when the government seeks to apply the ACC enhancement, it must introduce either the statutes of conviction or some other documentary evidence that “clearly establishes” either the statutes under which the defendant was convicted or the elements of those statutes. See also Phillips, 149 F.3d at 1033 (<HOLDING>); Potter, 895 F.2d at 1238 (requiring that the
holding that certified records of maintenance are nontestimonial and are not prepared for any particular defendant holding that fraud on the court was demonstrated clearly and convincingly where party had submitted false evidence and concealed authentic evidence holding that evidence was sufficiently reliable because there was corroboration holding that where the court records in the present case and the records in a previous conviction reflected the same name and date of birth as well as a signature and the defendant did not object that he was not the same person as had been previously convicted the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction holding that it was sufficient that the government submitted unchallenged certified records of conviction and other clearly reliable evidence