Rivera

MEMORANDUM *

The government appeals the district court’s partial grant of Crystal Rivera’s motion to suppress several phone conversations between Rivera and her boyfriend as hearsay. Cf. Fed.R.Evid. 802. The facts are known to the parties, and we will not repeat them here, except as necessary to explain our decision.

I

A

The government first argues that the boyfriend’s half of the conversations *517 consist only of questions and directives, not statements. Cf Lexington Ins. Co. v. W. Penn. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318, 330 (3d Cir.2005) (discussing cases and noting that “questions and inquiries are generally not hearsay because the declarant does not have the requisite assertive intent, even if the question convey[s] an implicit message or provides information about the declar-ant’s assumptions or beliefs” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the government did not raise this argument below, we review it for plain error. United States v. Abbouchi, 502 F.3d 850, 857 (9th Cir.2007).

We have never held that a directive, as such, cannot be a statement within the meaning of the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence suggest, at…