matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(B). We find that the warrants of deportation in this case consisted of a “routine, objective, cataloging of [ ] unambiguous factual matter[s].” United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2005). Additionally, the warrants and the notations on the back pages have “none of the features of the subjective report made by a law enforcement official in an on-the-scene investigation, which investigative reports lack sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because they are made in an adversary setting and likely to be used in litigation.” United States v. Hernandez-Rojas, 617 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Agustino-Hernandez,
holding exception set forth in rule 8038b was inapplicable to warrant of deportation where notation that alien was deported was ministerial objective observation with inherent reliability because of the governments need to keep accurate records of the movement of aliens holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens holding that warrant of deportation is admissible hearsay under fed revid 8038b to prove defendant was deported holding that records referring to defendant as escaped prisoner and escape risk were not admissible because exception for public records rule 8038b specifically excluded them as records of law enforcement personnel further holding that specific exclusion controlled over businessrecord hearsay exception rule 8036 holding that the warrant of removal warning to alien ordered deported and order from the immigration judge were nontestimonial