With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the borrowers to which the tax abstracts or returns referred or to cross-examine Mortgage Pros employees who had testified before the documents were offered into evidence. (Abreu’s App. at 587-88.) These objections did not preserve a Crawford issue related to the certifications themselves. The only objection based on Crawford in response to attempts to admit the Form 2866 Certifications, Form 4340 transcripts, or tax returns received from the IRS was an objection referencing a recent Law Journal article about the impact of Crawford on business records and raising "the possibility that these records may not be admissible with simply putting tax returns in based on Crawford.” (Appellant Abreu's App. at 588.) 6 . Cf. United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1077 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1114, 126 S.Ct. 1911,

A: holding that a simulator solution certificate was nontestimonial as it was prepared in a routine manner without regard to whether the certification related to any particular defendant
B: holding that a routine certification by the custodian of a domestic public record  and a routine attestation to authority and signature  are not testimonial in nature for purposes of crawford
C: holding that a rule 90211 certification of medical records was not testimonial noting that the court did not find as controlling the fact that a certification of authenticity under 90211 is made in anticipation of litigation what is compelling is that crawford expressly identified business records as nontestimonial evidence
D: holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights
B.