(emphasis added). 4 . Of course, unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the district court is not confined by the facts contained in the four comers of the complaint — it may consider facts and need not assume the truthfulness of the complaint. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.2000). Nor was the district court precluded from making a legal judgment as to the finality of the FAA’s actions and consequently as to its jurisdiction over the claims. 5 . The Zeigler Email was submitted to the Guam Airport on July 31, 2002. Jan's did not receive notice of the email until August 9, 2002, when the Airport denied ramp access. As a result, the 60-day period was tolled until August 9, 2002. See Nat'l Air Transp. Ass’n v. McArtor, 866 F.2d 483, 485 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Reder suggests that the "reasonable
holding that a defect in notice by the faa does no more than toll the statutory time limit holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that the time to disposition is more important than time to trial holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal holding that the failure to file a petition for crossappeal within the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional defect that bars the court from hearing the crossappeal