USA v. Cole et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLARENCE ANTHONY HATTON,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cr-00057-SLG-4
ORDER TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
Before the Court at Docket 513 is Defendant Clarence Anthony Hatton’s
response to the government’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice.1 The Court has
granted the government’s motion and taken judicial notice of a table—prepared by
the government based on information found in the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) database—listing federal criminal cases in which
defendant’s former counsel was listed as counsel of record.2 The government’s
table was admitted as Exhibit 2 at the evidentiary hearing in this case.3
Mr. Hatton seeks to have the Court take judicial notice of a similar table
prepared by the defense, identified as Exhibit VVV. The defense table modifies
government Exhibit 2 by adding a column of “notes” also based on information
1 The government’s motion is at Docket 504.
2 Docket 504-2 (chart); Docket 506.
3 Docket 508 (under seal).
Case 3:14-cr-00057-SLG Document 519 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:14-cr-00057-SLG-4, United States v. Hatton
Order Taking Judicial Notice
Page 2 of 2
found in PACER. These notes include objective information such as dates, types
of filed documents, and the length of imposed sentences.4
Having reviewed the proposed exhibit, the Court finds the information in the
exhibit “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.”5 Moreover, "[a] court may take judicial notice
of undisputed matters of public record, which may include court records available
through PACER."6
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Court will take judicial
notice of the PACER information in defense exhibit VVV. Exhibit VVV is admitted
into evidence.
DATED this 14th day of April, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 Docket 513-1.
5 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).
6 United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018).
Case 3:14-cr-00057-SLG Document 519 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2