claims are based on the document.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White, 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993). That proposition does not bring Hankin close to showing res judicata on the face of the Brodys’ complaint, however. The Brodys’ complaint mentions two documents unearthed in arbitration: copies of the alleged 1991 amendments to the HanMar agreements (along with related management and leasing agreements, and maintenance agreements), and a statement by HanMar’s counsel, presumably contained in a letter or deposition transcript, that no letters to a limited partner referring to the 1991 amendments could be found. The District Court thus properly could have considered these documents under White. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The District Court exceeded its mandate,
holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report holding that district court properly considered a police report that the defendant had stipulated contained a factual basis for his plea holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension holding that the district court permissibly considered annual report where data contained in the annual report repeatedly was referenced in complaint but was not cited