’ II. A. Smith first complains that the district court erroneously refused to admit a 1996 Consumer Reports article regarding the stability of 1995 and 1996 Isuzu Troopers. The article gave 1995 and 1996 Isuzu Troopers a “not acceptable” rating because Consumer Reports’ testing showed that those vehicles had a propensity to roll over. The article, however, specifically disclaimed its applicability to earlier year-model Troopers: “The Not Acceptable rating does not apply to 1994 and earlier Troopers, has been applied to allow the admission of the preliminary or interim evaluative opinions of agency staff members. Indeed, to apply Rule 803(8)(A) in the fashion Smith suggests would swallow whole Rule 803(8)(C) and its limitations. Rule 803(8)(C) provides a hearsay exception r.1988) (<HOLDING>); City of New York v. Pullman, Inc., 662 F.2d
holding that the district court properly refused to admit a tentative internal irs referral report because it did not contain agency factual findings holding that district court properly considered a police report that the defendant had stipulated contained a factual basis for his plea holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it