which are based, not on the contents of deponent’s testimony, but on his absence from court”). Our sister circuits have recognized that Rule 32(a) is an independent exception to the hearsay rule. See Ueland v. United States, 291 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir.2002) (“Rule 32(a), as a freestanding exception to the hearsay rule, is one of the ‘other rules’ to which Fed.R.Evid. 802 refers. Evidence authorized by Rule 32(a) cannot be excluded as hearsay, unless it would be inadmissible even if delivered in court.”); Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 962-63 (10th Cir.1993) (“Deposition testimony is normally inadmissible hearsay, but Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) creates an exception to the hearsay rules.”); S. Indiana Broadcasting, Ltd. v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1340, 1341—42 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328, 1339
holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion recognizing exception recognizing that fedrcivp 32a creates an exception to the hearsay rule holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule