corroborating evidence supporting the mailer’s testimony would have been helpful. III. CONCLUSION The Court reviewed the possible ways it might allow Claimants’ Claims under § 726(a)(2)(A), despite the fact the Claims were filed late. No rule or theory (e.g. excusable neglect, § 105(a), or the mailbox presumption) affords Claimants relief in this matter. On the merits, the Claimants did not carry their burden of proving that their Claims were timely mailed. The Court therefore rules that the Claims are untimely and must relegated to the payment priority set forth in § 726(a)(3). A separate order will be entered. 1 . In making these findings, the Court took judicial notice of the docket. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); LeBlanc v. Salem (In re Mailman Steam Carpet
recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket recognizing a district judge may dismiss a case sua sponte under either rule 41b or its inherent authority to manage its docket