United States v. Villegas-Martinez ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4838
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL OMAR VILLEGAS-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00068-JCC-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Aamra S. Ahmad,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney,
Stephen G. Yoder, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Omar Villegas-Martinez appeals from his
judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a jury verdict
finding him guilty of illegal re-entry into the United States
after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)
(2006). In his sole claim on appeal, Villegas-Martinez
challenges the district court’s admission of a warrant of
deportation, claiming violation of his confrontation clause
rights. We affirm.
Villegas-Martinez specifically challenges the
Government’s introduction, through Officer Day, of a warrant of
deportation, 1 which document reflected that Villegas-Martinez
held an illegal alien status at the time of his offense. The
underlying basis for his objection is Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36 (2004). We review de novo the district court’s
admission of alleged Confrontation Clause violations. United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir. 2008).
We find no error in the district court’s admission of
the warrant of deportation. The record was admitted as a self-
authenticating public record, and hence is not considered to be
testimonial hearsay under Crawford. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56.
1
Officer Day signed and executed the warrant.
2
See also United States v. Burgos, 539 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir.
2008) (collecting cases). 2
Accordingly, we affirm Villegas-Martinez’s conviction
and sentence. 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
2
In addition, Officer Day’s presence as a trial witness
subjected him to full cross-examination and satisfied any
Confrontation Clause concerns, and Villegas-Martinez’s
complaints on appeal as to the unavailability at trial of
another officer who actually witnessed Villegas-Martinez’s
departure and the failure of Officer Day to specifically testify
as to the departure go to the credibility of the testimony of
the testifying officer, which this court leaves to the jury to
assess. See United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.
2002); United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th Cir.
1984).
3