A person's character, or propensity, is inadmissible to show that person's conduct on a specific occasion.

United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343, 1347-1348 (9th Cir. 1985) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of a certified report showing lack of registration because even though "the report by [the NFA specialist] was....Under Federal Rule of Evidence 902 (2) and comparable State rules a domestic public document not under seal is "self-authenticating" -- sufficiently authenticated to be admissible -- when such a document is accompanied by certification under seal that (a) that the signer of the document has the official capacity that the document reflects, and (b) the signature is genuine.

United States v. Reyes, 362 F.3d 536, 540 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of a co-conspirator's statements as recounted by an agent which did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights....If a statement is offered against a criminal defendant as the statement of the defendant's co-conspirator which was made during and in furtherance, the statement is not a "testimonial" statement for purposes of the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the statement is therefore not subject to the constraints on admissibility imposed by that confrontation right on "testimonial" hearsay statements.

Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) advisory committee's note ("If preliminary questions of conditional relevancy were determined solely by the judge, as provided in subdivision (a), the functioning of the jury as a trier of fact would be greatly restricted and in some cases virtually destroyed. These are appropriate questions for juries. Accepted...The evidence for a condition upon which the relevance of evidence depends must be sufficient to support a finding by the trier of fact that the condition exists.