Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85. Since Gamory was not entitled to a Franks hearing, there was no violation of his rights to due process, confrontation, or right to counsel. B. THE RAP VIDEO Gamory challenges the District Court’s admission, over his objection, of the rap video that was described above. He contends the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the video because it was irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, contrary to the Confrontation Clause, and unfairly prejudicial. In the District Court, Gamory only objected based on Fed. R.Evid. 403 “with regards to prejudicial information that’s contained on this video.” Because he did not preserve his relevancy, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause claims, they are subject to plain error review. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1291 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause (B) holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue (C) holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay (D) holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised (E) holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge
Output (English): holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised