United States v. Nobriga, ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.4 (9th Cir. May 20, 2005) (per curiam) (assuming, without deciding, that defendant's admission in district court that victim of prior Hawaii conviction of abuse of a family or household member, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 709-906(A), was "former girlfriend" was not admissible to establish that prior conviction fell within the definition of a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), because: "Such a post hoc admission is not pertinent to Taylor's modified categorical approach. The statement at issue did not come in the plea colloquy for the offense of conviction, which generally is judicially noticeable under Taylor and Shepard. See, e .g., United States v. Smith, 390 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended, No. 03-30533, 2005 WL 957188 (9th Cir. Apr.27, 2005). Rather, Nobriga's statement about the former offense was made in the district court in this case. Such a statement is not judicially noticeable under Taylor and Shepard. See, e.g., Shepard, 125 S.Ct. at 1261 (reaffirming Taylor's holding that "respect for congressional intent and avoidance of collateral trials require that evidence of generic conviction be confined to records of the convicting court approaching the certainty of the record of conviction in a generic crime State" (emphasis added)).").