Standley

MEMORANDUM *

Jack Standley appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted distribution of Ox *729 ycontin tablets in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1).

Standley contends that the introduction into evidence of tape-recorded conversations between himself and a deceased confidential informant violated his right to confront a witness against him under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The admission of nonhearsay raises no Confrontation Clause concerns. United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 398 n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986). This is because nonhearsay statements are not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, and therefore cross-examination regarding the statements would not further the interests served by the Confrontation Clause. Id.

In this case, the informant’s statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. Rather, they were offered to provide necessary context for Standley’s own statements. See United States v. Whitman, 771 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1340 (9th Cir.1981). Therefore, the admission of the informant’s statements did not violate the Confrontation…