one month prior to the date of defendant’s arrest; certificate number 128-04 was issued on October 6,2004, less than a month after the arrest. Defendant argues that the trial court’s reliance on these certificates violated his right of confrontation under Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 68-69, 124 S.Ct. at 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d at 203. We disagree. In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court determined that when “testimonial evidence” is at issue, dispensing with confrontation solely because testimony is deemed reliable is violative of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Renshaw, 390 N.J.Super. 456, 462-63, 915 A.2d 1081 (App.Div. 2007) (citing Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 68-69,124 S.Ct. at 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d at 203). Thus, in Renshaw, we held tha 183 (2007) (<HOLDING>); State v. Huu The Cao, 175 N.C.App. 434, 626
holding that certified records of maintenance are nontestimonial and are not prepared for any particular defendant holding that certifications of a breathtest machine are nontestimonial because they are not prepared for any specific defendant or any specific litigation holding that warrants of deportation were properly characterized as nontestimonial official records that were prepared independent of this litigation and were not prepared to prove facts for use in future criminal prosecutions 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 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