If a licensing or regulatory scheme makes the character of a person a condition for a license to engage in an occupation or activity, evidence of the character trait made pertinent by the licensing or regulatory scheme is not barred by the rule prohibiting the use of a person's character to show the person's conduct.

United States v. Lauersen, 348 F.3d 329, 342 (2d Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of billing records as business records because the qualified witness was able to lay a foundation under Rule 803(6) as he....The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) (quote the relevant portion of the Rule).The co-conspirator exemption from the hearsay rule applies only if the trial court concludes that a preponderance of of the evidence shows that the statement of the alleged co-conspirator was made during the conspiracy rather than before or after the conspiracy.

Fed. R. Evid. 902 ("Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required" in the circumstances described by subdivisions 1-12 of the Rule).Some things or documents -- some things and documents with certain characteristics or appearances -- do not have to be authenticated: some things or documents are "self-authenticating."