intent and the public authority defense at a new trial, it should also provide an appropriate instruction articulating that reliance on the apparent authority of a government official is not a viable defense. 7 . In light of our conclusion that the district court properly granted a new trial, we need address only one additional issue on appeal. Michael contends that his indictment was defective because it failed to provide him with proper notice of the three drug-related violations underlying the continuing criminal enterprise count. His argument is without merit, however, because the CCE count in the indictment expressly incorporated by reference the predicate drug violations upon which the jury relied in convicting Michael. See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 863 (4th Cir.1996)
recognizing that a court is permitted to rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct holding that an indictment which incorporated by reference the predicate drugrelated violations was sufficient to provide adequate notice for a cce count holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense