NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 2215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. RYAN SEALS ,

Appellant

On A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( D.C. No. 12

- CR

- 00206

- 01 ) District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 14 , 2014 BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge , and CHAGARES and S HWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 8, 2014)

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Chief Judg e2

Ryan Seals appeals the District Court’s judgment of sentence and conviction for illegally possessing a firearm . He argues that the District Court abused its discretion by permitt ing the Government to present inadmissible hearsay , and by excluding poten tially exculpatory evidence. For the following reasons, we wi ll affirm the order of the District
Court. 1
I. As we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we need not reiterate them

. Seals first argu es that the District Court abused its discretion by allowing the Government to present hearsay testimony in the form of a statement by Seals’ brother , Bryan. However, the District Court properly concluded that the disputed statement was not being offered t o prove the truth of the declaration (that police where in the area). Rather, it was offered to show its effec t on Seals. Accordingly, it was not hearsay under
F ED

. R. E VID

. 801(c)

. The statement was also admissible as a present

- sense impression under F ED

. R.
E V ID

. 803(1 ) to reflect his spontaneous observations about police presence , and the court properly allowed police to explain the meani ng of the street phrase. See United States v.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 3742(a). We generally review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Green , 556 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Sokolow , 91 F.3d 39 6, 402 (3d Cir. 1996)). In the event that the evidentiary determination is premised upon an interpretation of the federal rules of evidence, however, our review of the determination is plenary. Id.3

Gibbs , 190 F.3d 188 , 211 (3d Cir. 1999) (officers with particularized knowledg e may explain the meaning of certain street terms). Seals’ also argues that he should have been allowed to admit a statement made to a
detectiv e during a photo array. The de c l arant did not testify and was apparently not
available because he would have a sserted his privilege agai nst self

- incrimination. Seals first contends that Detective Cremen’s observation of Reginald Gibbons’ failure to identify Ryan Seals was admissible as a non

- hearsay description under F ED

. R. E VID

. 602. In the alternative, Seal s cl aims that Detective Cremen’s testimony regarding Reginald Gibbons ’ written statement qualifies as a hearsay exception under 803(b)(3) or 804(b)(5). Seals’ first argument confuses the purpose of F ED

. R. E VID

. 602

. As a result, it
fails. F ED

. R. E VID

. 602 f unctions as pre

- requisite for the introduction of testimony . A
witness may not testify about an event s/he does not have personal knowledge of. The Rule does not supplant the hearsay rules. Seals’ second argument is similarly misplaced. Gibbons’ stat ement was made while police considered him a complainant, not a suspect. Given the circumstances surrounding the disputed statement , and the fact that it was neutral, rather than incriminating, it can not reasonably be viewed as an “admission” against inte rest and is
therefore not admissible under F ED

. R. E VID

. 804(b)(3)

. Although Gibbons did later4

confess to possessing a gun, that does not transform the nature of statements he made when police viewed him as a victim. 2 Seals’ final argument likewise fails

. As a general matter, we have reserved application of the resi dual hearsay exception

— Rule 807

— to instances when “ exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness exist and when high degrees of probative ness and necessity are present. ” United States v. Turner , 718 F.3d 226, 233 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted)

. Gibbons’ statement lacked any degree of trustworthiness b ecause of its surrounding circums tances . He was not under oath n or subject to cross

- examination. It

was rather a voluntary stateme nt made s oon after the shooting. Moreover, not only is there no corroboration of the statement’s reliability, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that he likely could have identified Seals

. In the end, all of this evidence points to the conclusion that the Di strict Court did not commit reversible error by exclud ing this evidence for lack of trustworthiness. 3

II. For the foregoing reas ons we will affirm the order of the District Court.

2 Because we find that the statements were not against Gi bbons’ penal interest, it is unnecessary to examine the indicia of reliability. 3 Seals’ due process argument also fails as the evidentiary ruling concerning Gibbons’ statement did not impede his right to present a defense. Williams v. Price , 343 F.3d 223 , 232 (3d Cir. 2003).