Opinion ID: 4537833
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attached Documents

Text: The Government did attach relevant Shepard documents to its appellate brief. Aple. Br. at 13 n.6; see also Judgment and Sentence, District Court of Oklahoma Cmty., OK, Case No. CF-95-7704 (Judgment 1) and Judgment and Sentence, District Court of Oklahoma Cmty., OK, Case No. CF-96-5184 (Judgment 2). As the Government notes, we may take judicial notice of these documents. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c), (d), and Advisory Committee Note to (f) (“[J]udicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceedings, whether in the trial court or on appeal.”); see also St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979) (“[F]ederal courts, in appropriate circumstances, may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (citations omitted), United States v. Burris, 912 F.3d 386, 396 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We have taken judicial notice of Shepard documents in similar circumstances before.”) (collecting Sixth Circuit cases). Thrasher objects and argues that even if we take judicial notice of the documents, they do not provide enough information to determine which provision served as a basis for his guilty pleas. However, the only provision Thrasher argues might not qualify as a predicate offense would be if he were charged under a solicitation clause. Both Judgments make clear that Thrasher was engaging in 9 distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, not solicitation; Judgment 2 even mentions the substance in question. Thus, the documents establish that Thrasher’s prior Oklahoma drug crimes are for possession with intent to distribute, which would match the ACCA’s definition of a serious drug offense.