Inferences based on inferences are permissible

United States v. Bailey, 270 F.3d 83, 87 (1st Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony about defendant's actions following her agreement to cooperate because it did not constitute hearsay....If some human utterance has legal significance under applicable substantive law and the utterance is offered to establish that a verbal act having such legal significance has taken place, the utterance is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) or a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2) even if the utterance also contains an assertion or appears to contain an an assertion.

Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1111 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding, in defendant's habeas corpus petition, that the trial court properly admitted witness's statements because "Huff's statements were most likely not....The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause places no limits on the admission at trial of nonhearsay statements made prior to or outside of trial.

United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir. 1997) (upholding trial court's ruling which determined that defendant Matlock's statements at trial were sufficiently inconsistent with his prior plea hearing....A prior inconsistent statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule only if the prior statement is in fact inconsistent with the declarant's testimony at the trial or with some other statement of the declarant that is admitted into evidence pursuant to some hearsay exemption or exception.