the witnesses against to a trial which mr lee ultimately did not have the opportunity to do we ask this court to reverse and remand the lower court's decision for two particular reasons first mr lee's sixth amendment rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment your honor the d m v custodian of records in this case her testimony explicitly states that this notice is a testimonial document because part of its purpose is to be used in court according to the record between pages seventy seven and seventy document and thus this is an admission by your client and thus there is no sixth amendment problem at all because your your client signed this and it's an admission where your honour's according to this the record here  in response to his allegation if you just put it in and put it in for the truth of the matter that would be one thing but he claimed he didn't get any of these more than one document and it was admitted to show that he did get something and indeed he signed for  that's not testimony it was a counsel well your honor according to the record on page one sixty six the magistrate judge did you know that he was admitting the document for the purpose of showing that mr lee ultimately did have knowledge which is something that the government has the burden of proving in be my signature and then on page one forty nine and one fifty and you believe it's your signature on the last page correct yes or i do believe that's my signature isn't that what your client testified to that is correct john or however he did testify early on that he didn't remember signing the document and there was also evidence from his property manager and that he likely didn't have never received the other two documents that but then isn't that simply a matter that doesn't go to admissibility but it goes to weight if the if the trier of fact believes that your client signed it and he certainly has the ability to and he certainly seems to have found that your client doesn't that convert this to an admission that totally obvi sixth amendment problem potentially your honor but in this case the d m v custodian you know she testified numerous times that the document was testimonial and the defense rebutted alternately based on the entire the admission of this document and the presumption that he had knowledge that you received these documents the defense rebut about with evidence from his property manager that he likely never received and he did testify under oath that he didn't remember signing this document and it's we can presume that people when they go to d m v they sign a number of documents and that's also something that the custodian of records testified that it is a busy place and that multiple documents are signed so outside of the stockmen there's no other evidence to show that  the testimony was that they were mailed they were mailed to his address and while the trier of fact was free to believe your client he was also free to believe that your client did receive them so are there is potentially other evidence if your client is disbelieved pereira potentially your honor however the other two documents that were admitted had conflicting information so for all we know mr lee could have thought that his license was going to be you know suspended or that the stay would be in place until february ninth which is what the admin per se hearing notice stated and the other document stated that it would have been in place until january twenty third and this incident happened on january twenty seventh so there are already conflicting dates and information so there was no other way to prove that he had knowledge outside of this document and this document and the way there's no other evidence in the record here saying outside of these three particular documents and the first one the verbal notice being was there credibility finding made by the court with regard to his explanation about the last meal i do believe that they did look into back i'm not entirely sure what the court did determine based on mr leask credibility but the contents of that document which the judge did inquire into and he did inquire into the substance of that there is a conversation that is behind that document there was a d m v employee who ultimately according to the doc and i believe it's on page two hundred  was was a drug trafficking case there was drug lab analyst certificates and in that case it was found to violate the confrontation clause because those documents were specifically made under circumstances which would have led an objective lee reasonable witness to believe that they were made for trial eric chang for the united states yours i'd like to start by addressing counsel's point that there was no other way aside from those three pieces of evidence for the magistrate judge to find that  that his license was suspended that is not true the defendant's own exhibit one which is found it e r two zero seven i believe that document itself on the bottom left it shows that a verbal notice was given and that can be read in tandem with the d m v custodians testimony that this notation occurs when someone with a license shows up to the d m v and is told that they have a suspended license and this is further corroborated by the defendant's own testimony that he was at the d m v on october seventeenth now even beyond this the magistrate judge noted that he found mr lee guilty because mr lee had an i d card which he which the judge found to be indicative of mr nice mr lee's knowledge that he didn't have a license and when mr lee was stopped by the officer that cited him mr lee didn't you know say that he had an administrative stay he didn't say that he had a he didn't have a license but that his that that the stay was in effect he didn't have the stay with him instead he presented an i d card and said that he had a valid license at home all of this in tandem with with the verbal notice of action with those two documents shows that there's more than enough evidence even beyond those three documents for the ma e judge to find that mr lee had notice the other point i'd like to touch on is that this verbal notice of action was admitted for the substance this has been talked about previously but i'd like to emphasize that the record is very clear that this notice was not admitted for non hearsay purposes that's found in the record on e r sixty seven to sixty eight again sixty eight to sixty nine again on you are sixty nine and then one seventy one one seventy three and one seventy four counsel i know that that's what the magistrate judge said i don't really understand that because it's not clear to me for the verbal notice of action and what relevance actually could have in that case other than that the notice was in  fact given to mr lee who signed it so i know that's certainly what the magistrate judge said but whatever he said he received it for doesn't it directly go   just the fact that this document exists is indicative that mr lee had notice even without the substance of this document which i think would go towards weight rather than which would which would help that the documents weight the fact that this document exists corroborates the testimony of the d m v employee that the standard procedures is you know when somebody doesn't have a license and shows up at the d m v they're told that they have notice i'm still not sure i understand i mean this documents he got notice and its relevance is that he got notice it doesn't corroborate that he got notice that somewhere else it says he got notice well the exit the fact that this document exists the the fact that this exists is indicative of notice even if if we don't i got this but if you don't use the truth  what stated in the document well that's i think where i disagree i think the existence of the document when viewed in light of the d m v custodians testimony i think that shows or at least it gives the inference that verbal notice was given is this document testimonial no i don't believe that it is but in this case we're arguing that it wasn't admitted for hearsay purposes in the first place you're also arguing that even if it was the error was harmless correct correct and i'm also i guess arguing that in the alternative you know if it were admitted for hearsay purposes then the verbal notice of action itself is non testimonial and that would be based on i believe this court's prior ruling only a few months ago in lopez and non presidential a not controlling case but it deals with the exact same document being admitted for the exact same purpose admitted in this case that the verbal notice of action was part of the purpose was to be used in litigation i think that's a misstatement of the d m v custodian's actual testimony on direct the d m be custodians testimony in fact was that this document might be used for court  time i just have a one point rebuttal and that is that opposing counsel mentioned the case of us feel lopez and i'd like to just briefly distinguish that case because in that case there was no d m v custodian of records who testified that this document was for use in court and over the course of twenty pages between pages seventy seven and ninety seven of the record mr johnson did testify on direct and cross that this document was made in the for the purpose of coming to court and although mr lee went numerous times to the d m v he never repeat testified that he never received any information in regards to the suspension or the stay and regardless of having an i d when he approached the gate at the tracy de is the most substantial issue here you are ultimately allowing the government to admit this document and that substance as the main piece of evidence to show that mr lee had knowledge without calling the d m v person who had that