crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 5 . Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) states: (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (2) Admission- by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship 6 . Defendant Prevatte adopted defendant Soy's arguments in toto. 7 . See United States v. Sanders, 979 F.2d 87, 90 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2367, 124
holding that structural evidence showing the inception of the conspiracy prior to the charged activities was admissible under rule 404b holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under rule 801d2e but admission of testimony was harmless because officers testimony was cumulative holding testimony admissible as showing context of relationship with coconspirator prior to conspiracy