get out of the neighborhood; (4) that they “took care of some business”; (5) that he thought that Castillo and Jacobo had murdered someone; and (6) that he collected taxes for Castillo on two occasions. This list is not exhaustive, but illustrative only. Gonzales’s testimony about conversations with Arevalo are admissible as the statement of a party opponent. Fed. R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Gonzales’s conversation with Mindy concerning the guns is admissible because she was conveying an instruction and thus the statement is not hearsay. Instructions are neither true nor false. An instruction may contain an implied assertion but it is not itself an assertive statement and thus is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2). United, States v. Zenni, 492 F.Supp. 464, 469 (E.D.Ky.1980) (<HOLDING>). Gonzales may testify about his conversations
holding that betting instructions placed over the phone to a government agent are not hearsay holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised