Habit is a regular response to a specific situation.

United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 360 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that out-of-court statements of a 911 caller which identified defendant as the assailant was erroneously admitted because "statement....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant unless (i) the absent declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and (ii) the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant prior to trial.

1 U.S.C. § 112a(a) (United States treaties and other international agreements are legal evidence).Federal Rule of Evidence of 902(10) and comparable State rules provide that any signature, document, or other matter is self-authenticating -- i.e., requires no further evidence of authenticity to be admissible in evidence -- if an applicable statute provides that the signature, document, or other matter is presumptively authentic or if an applicable statute provides that the signature, document, or other matter is prima facie evidence of its own authenticity.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- ... (2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity").If a statement is made by a party and the statement is offered against the party that made the statement, the federal law of evidence characterizes such a statement as non-hearsay and exempts it from the hearsay prohibition found in Federal Rule of Evidence 802 or a comparable State rule even though the exempted statement otherwise satisfies the definition of hearsay given in Rule 801(c) or a comparable State rule.