a defendant were held to be inadmissible pursuant to Rule 803(8)(B). Id. Similarly, a defendant’s exculpatory statements contained in a police report were held inadmissible under Rule 803(8) as a matter “observed by police officers.” State v. Maness, 321 N.C. 454, 459, 364 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1988). However, fingerprinting and photographing a suspect, and cataloguing a judgment and sentence, are the types of routine and unambiguous matters which the public records hearsay exception in Rule 803(8) is designed to allow, and. were not meant to be prohibited by the exclusion in subsection (B). United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1114, 164 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2006); see also, State v. Windley, 173 N.C. App. 187, 193-94, 617 S.E.2d 682, 686 (2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied and disc. review denied, 360
holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible holding that a certified abstract of a defendants driving record was nontestimonial holding that records of a criminal defendants previous convictions in state court are nontestimonial holding that driving records were nontestimonial holding that law enforcement record cards allegedly bearing defendants fingerprints were nontestimonial in nature