Whether inferences based on inferences are permissible

Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) & (b) ("(a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. (b)...When an exception to the character evidence prohibition makes evidence of a criminal defedant's character admissible, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the defendant's character must take the form of reputation or opinion and it cannot consist of specific instances of the defendant's conduct.

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 757-758 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of the redacted factual resume of defendant's brother which stated that defendant delivered the methamphetamine as a prior....A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.

United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 478-479 (4th Cir. 1982) (reversing conviction for conspiracy to murder a DEA special agent and remanding for new trial the charge of conspiracy to obstruct the administration of....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule, a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's refusal is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.