court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d at 435. CONCLUSION Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence at trial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Montgomery’s conviction for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. NAJAM, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur. 1 . These limits apply to the total amount of base ephedrine and pseudoephedrine contained in the products and not to the overall weight of the products. 2 . This conclusion is consistent with opinions issued by the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. See U.S. v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 411 (5th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922, 930 (8th
recognizing that states have a clear interest in businesses creating nplex logs that extends beyond the evidentiary value of the logs and concluding that because the purchase logs were not prepared specifically and solely for use at trial they are not testimonial and do not violate the confrontation clause holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances holding that reports of chemical analyses were testimonial in nature and subject to the confrontation clause requirements