civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). We conclude that the district court properly concluded that the memoranda did not fall within the scope of this exception. Smith first argues that the memoranda qualify as public records within the meaning of Rule 803(8)(A). We disagree. Although NHTSA staff members prepared the memo-randa in the course of evaluating the Wirth petition, the memoranda do not “set forth” the “activities of the agency” within the meaning of Rule 803(8)(A). See, e.g., United States v. Vidaure, 861 F.2d 1337, 1340-41 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Alexander v. Estepp, 95 F.3d 312, 314 (4th
holding that admission in evidence of certified copies of docket sheets of defendants prior convictions did not violate defendants sixth amendment right to confrontation because such records are not testimonial holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that police report containing victim affidavit was not admissible under public records exception holding that copies of defendants convictions contained in pen packet were admissible under public records exception holding that an automobiles title history was admissible under the public records exception