The routine practice of an organization is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 or a comparable State rule in order to show the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion, but a volitional routine practice cannot be used to show the conduct of a specific person on a particular occasion.

United States v. Wilford, 710 F.2d 439, 450-451 (8th Cir. 1983) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of the settlement stipulation because it was offered "to explain the circumstances surrounding the refunds, not....Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, evidence about settlements and settlement offers and negotiations in civil actions is admissible for a wide variety of purposes; such settlement evidence is admissible whenever it is not offered on a disputed question of the validity of a claim or its amount or to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement or by specific contradiction.

United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006, 1018-1019 (1st Cir. 1993) (upholding trial court's admission of seven reports from the publication County Comps as a published compilation under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(17) because....There is a hearsay exception for market quotations, directories, or similar published compilations that are generally used and relied upon either by the public or by members of particular occupations.

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) ("if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted").When a conviction is offered for impeachment and the conviction is not for a crime that involves dishonesty or false statement, the conviction may be used to impeach a witness only if the authorized sentence for that conviction is death or imprisonment for more than one year.