Mr. Lang argues that the district court erroneously admitted Galen Ure’s testimony. We review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard and reverse district court rulings only' for “a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of law or ... a clear error in judgment.” United States v. Jenkins, 313 F.3d 549, 559 (10th Cir.2002). We find Mr. Lang’s argument without merit. The district court admitted Mr. Ure’s testimony as non-hearsay under Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). We do not determine the applicability of Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), however, because Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) permits Mr. Ure’s testimony regarding Mr. Lang’s statements as a non-hearsay admission by party-opponent. See In re Slack-Horner Foundries Co., 971 F.2d 577, 579-80 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). “A statement is not hearsay if .... [t]hé
holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds