US v. Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO DIAZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00114-FDW-CH-1)
September 21, 2009
December 7, 2009
Before KING and Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez was convicted of illegal
reentry following removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). to seventy-two months in The district court sentenced him Diaz-Gutierrez appeals,
contending that the admission of a warrant of deportation into evidence Amendment. We violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
We affirm. review evidentiary rulings implicating the
Confrontation Clause de novo.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528
F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). The Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial
statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior
opportunity for cross-examination." U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). cases make clear, a
Crawford v. Washington, 541
"As Crawford and later Supreme Court statement must be `testimonial' to be
excludable under the Confrontation Clause."
United States v.
Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 268 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)). Documents entity's proving affairs some and "created not for for the . . the administration of of an or
purpose . are
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2539-40 (2009). 2
deportation . . . [I]t
cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter." Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th
United States v. Cir. 2005). We
conclude, as have all Circuits to have considered the question, that a warrant of deportation is nontestimonial and therefore "not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause." See United States v. Burgos, 539 F.3d 641, 645 (7th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Therefore, the district court did not err
in admitting the warrant of deportation into evidence. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?