MEMORANDUM **

Jose Andres Lopez-Chamu appeals his 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being found in the United States after illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Chamu contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based on a prior conviction that was neither proved to a jury nor admitted during the plea colloquy. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 & n. 16 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1911, -L.Ed.2d-(2006).

Lopez-Chamu next contends that the district court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by admitting three warrants of removal/deportation and a certificate of nonexistence of record (“CNR”) because they are testimonial documents and violate *632Crawford, v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1652, 164 L.Ed.2d 398 (2006) (warrant of deportation) and United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 830-34 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 126 S.Ct. 1911, — L.Ed.2d -(2006) (CNR).

Lopez-Chamu lastly contends that the district court’s condition of supervised release requiring him to report to the probation officer within 72 hours of re-entry into the United States violates his Fifth Amendment rights. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.