c thirteen twenty six he was convicted and sentenced to one hundred forty two months incarceration as a result of that conviction during trial he objected to the admission and exhibit proposed by the government the back page of the warrant of deportation otherwise known as the i q of five the second page of that document bore the signatures of two officers from the immigration naturalization service who verified that mr contreras had actually been deported from the united states that is actually step foot in mexican soil neither one of those officers who signature appear on the document testified at trial in fact we don't even know who they are and their signatures although are on the document we can't verify their names or find out who they were mr  all five execution want provided testimony about the reliability of the process that generated the documents meaning these are the normal procedures that take place when the war is executed and we didn't have anything like that in this case we had a document that was admitted under the public records exception and the district court relied on contrariness instead it's a public reliability to it if it wasn't merely a minister it's merely a ministerial observation of a law enforcement officer then it should be admissible under the public records exception however this goes this individuals who signed this were law enforcement officers and they recorded their observations and it went to material element of the offense in this criminal case and the rule itself the literal reading of it doesn't make any exceptions for quote reliable observations or ministerial observations of a law enforcement officer it merely says those things are not admissible so those two cases essentially expanded the evidence rule and scaled back this right of confrontation under the constitution have you except in which you say if i read the record correctly your client admitted that he'd been removed from the united states so admission of the warrant portage at the time that the objection to the warning deportation was made to the district court the court inquired of the prosecution how critical was this document of them and the prosecutor  prosecutor you have here it merited that his case depend entirely upon this document and so i don't think you can find it is completely harmless on the basis of other evidence either it's what about your second point that second point we don't have any case law on this issue and again it's a complementary issue it relates to the competency of the witness who testified about the absence of to testify about the nonet existence of these records and he admitted he had knowledge he did not have that sort of fixation never last the objection was overruled and we don't have any reasoning for it there is no case law that i proved was the ins officer said i've reviewed the case and i didn't see any paperwork in there about permission to reenter so again that relates to an element of the offense and the testimony that we him to court yet he's sitting there on the witness stand looking at the file he did have the file and access to the file i don't know if it stayed within the whole time but what i'm getting at is i don't understand the argument that once the documents are shown to him he can't look through it and see what he sees was there an objection to him looking up the file no so ok so the documents are without objection shown to the witness contention that he can't say i'm not looking at exhibit one and this is what i see this is what i don't see you know our objection was under the c f r you have to have authority to certify the nominee right and he didn't do it he didn't do any certification ok so so we can't really say that he certified something he didn't because he didn't certify anything what he's what he's doing is he's testifying from the witness stand looking at an exhibit and describing what he sees i am i missing the problem there you have presumably  still have a problem with what specially since there's no objection to the file what's the problem of this guy's got a familiarity with the file explaining it talking about it and saying what he observes about it i guess convince me he's not authorized to make a certification right but he didn't make a certificat circuit precedent it is a record kept you need a special course the business is a course of explain below it's not a police report it's a means of keeping track of an alien and the fact that he was deported the fact later becomes evidence it's only because the defendant we have offended otherwise it would have never been evidence that was not a report hermel activity or an investigation when that warning is completed the reality of the situation when you  the vast amounts of people that are deported by deportation officers or law enforcement officers over our southern border all the officer would have been able to say anyway more than likely as my job is to do this i check a picture i check a fingerprint when i see him start out across the bridge then i sign a form he would more than likely have no individual memory of this particular defendant and the question about whether or not he was important was pretty much answered by the fact that when he was interviewed in jail he said he maintained by the immigration and naturalization service for this defendant he had the opportunity to go through it he couldn't find any document giving the defendant authority to return to the united states but didn't go beyond saying he couldn't find anything in there he said custody and that's an interesting question aren't any files because who is the official cross posting would it be the attorney general with director of immigration or someone else or actually stored in different areas throughout the country and then they're brought in confidence than then you are me to say what's in a file the file is there he says why look through it and and there's no authority but that that really and in that sense of things he had no more knowledge than a juror or  a judge or any that may well be your honor but the same would be true if you think about the person who certified is the nonexistence of a record that they went through and said there's nothing in there which certifying a negative right that the  that regulation and when you read regulation most of it's for administrative purposes when individuals are trying to get official records mainly for civil litigation that they get something certified by a person from headquarters that's experience what's required to be maintained in the files and that he looked through it and what's unfair i believe the agent also testified that he had access to the computer industries the same type of computers the use of the border where you can punch in a name or a understand what you're trying to do in the case here and you may have succeeded in getting out of this but i don't see how how you get around the regulation in terms of saying that this agent had ha he certified something which would have been signing a certificate i'm waiting certification is a technical requirement of the individual who can actually sign is an authorized person difference would be absolutely correct he does not having picking somebody out of the agency to bring you know for you is circumventing the normal rules of foundation you've got and you get we don't know that it's all he knows of he got the documents maybe that's enough but it seems to me that in most circumstances that you have to have some knowledge well i would suggest who would have the better knowledge of what's going on file the individual who's holding the a file that has the original documents pictures of the defendant or the faceless individual in washington who signs of a piece of paper and is not subject to cross examination who's not in court is now in the file well sure but the point of that is that there are procedures to follow to ensure that it's a complete file that apply show that would be our position on it even if there was an error in this case since the president admitted the offense there's sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction and finally just as a point of this trial felt like a trial by affidavit he was presented with documentation and that was all the evidence that the government presented relative to the material elements of the offense even this alleged confession of his was a document that he didn't write this was composed by this agent group who went around interviewing while in prison under the notion that he would process his deportation after that point so that if you paperwork came in against him that that's all there was right because given that we don't have the authority to overrule the presence of the three judge panel i want to move your second point all right well certification if we  we wanted this individual certified for the purpose of saying there is no record out there for him applying for permission to return to the united states yes maybe it wasn't in the file is that the entire is there a record kept of people who apply for admission in the bureaucracy in washington d c nobody testified about that and that's why we felt it was important that there should be a certification of this individual