Hamilton

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Mark William Hamilton timely appeals his conviction following a jury trial for one count of aggravated sexual abuse, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2241(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly excluded testimony from a police officer who *721 would have testified that the defendant’s brother told the officer that the victim, a minor, had recanted her allegation that the defendant inappropriately touched her. The brother’s statements to the officer were hearsay and did not fall under any enumerated hearsay exception. Hamilton’s contention that the statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 because they had “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” equivalent to those of the enumerated hearsay exceptions is meritless. Likewise, Hamilton’s Confrontation Clause contention is meritless.

Even if the district court improperly applied Federal Rule of Evidence 412 to exclude the victim’s statement to her doctor, its exclusion did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statement’s exclusion was neither “arbitrary” nor “disproportionate to the purposes [Rule…