Whether expert evidence about dangerousness of a person or about recidivism is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence

United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 264-265 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony as to attorney's statement as an admission of a party by an agent because "the government....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(3) ("A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,...Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement by a declarant setting forth the declarant's perception of the declarant's internal state (including mental states, bodily conditions, feelings, motives, designs, and intentions) at the time the declarant makes the statement.

United States v. Valadez-Gallegos, 162 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998) ("However, we may not uphold a conviction obtained by piling inference upon inference. United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995). 'An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic...Inferences based on inferences are permissible