Ogedengbe

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Wole Emmanuel Ogedengbe appeals his conviction for conspiracy to import heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(b)(1)(A) and 963, and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 952(a), 960(b)(1)(A), and 963. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate the sentence, and remand for re-sentencing.

I.

Appellant argues that the admission at trial of out-of-court statements made by his wife violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Appellant’s wife was tried and convicted at the same trial for conspiracy to import heroin, but she *574 did not testify. Some of her statements were offered as false exculpatory statements that showed consciousness of guilt and evidenced the existence of the conspiracy. The admission of those nonhearsay statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause. See Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985). Other statements were offered for their truth, but they concerned matters that were not in dispute, and therefore, their…