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 VillegasMartinez 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, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (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, 124 S.Ct. 1354. See also United States v. Burgos, 539 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). 2

*262 Accordingly, we affirm Villegas-Mar-tinez’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.