We consider their statements not for their truth, but as verbal acts to show involvement." United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206, 103 S.Ct. 1194, 75 L.Ed.2d 439 (1983); see also United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) (may consider statements as verbal acts); United States v. Alvarez-Porras, 643 F.2d 54, 58 (2d Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 839, 102 S.Ct. 146, 70 L.Ed.2d 121 (1981); United States v. Hassell, 547 F.2d 1048, 1052-53 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 1338, 51 L.Ed.2d 599 (1977); United States v. Calaway, 524 F.2d 609, 612-13 (9th Cir. 1975) (same), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 967, 96 S.Ct. 1462, 47 L.Ed.2d 733 (1976). When considered for this purpose, i.e., that the entries or statements were made, the entries show that the author did acts (the recording of the illegal business's expenses) which furthered the objectives of the gambling enterprise.

United States v. Alfonso, 10 Cir., 738 F.2d 369, 371 was a trial to the court. United States v. Shepherd, 10 Cir., 739 F.2d 510, 514, and United States v. Petersen, 10 Cir., 611 F.2d 1313, 1330, cert. denied 447 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 2985, 64 L.Ed.2d 854, presented question of the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators. See § 801(d)(2)(E).

738 F.2d at 779. Patterson relies upon United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 513 (10th Cir. 1984), in which the Tenth Circuit held that where the only evidence against the defendant is testimony by an accomplice, that accomplice cannot "boot strap" his testimony by providing uncorroborated testimony about prior criminal acts of the defendant. We need not decide whether to adopt Shepherd for this circuit, however, because this case is distinguishable from Shepherd.

The trial court was also justified in holding that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1984) (evidence admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) must also satisfy balancing test contained in Fed.R.Evid. 403). The threats against Ms. Huffman had substantial probative value, for they had some relevance to the defendant's alleged solicitation of Elrod. See United States v. Naranjo, 710 F.2d 1465, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) (evidence that defendant previously beat ex-wife properly admitted in murder prosecution); United States v. Bufalino, 683 F.2d 639, 647 (2d Cir. 1982) (extortion threat properly admitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104, 103 S.Ct. 727, 74 L.Ed.2d 952 (1983).

This Circuit has no talismanic formula for ascertaining when a conspirator's statements are "in furtherance" of the conspiracy. See United States v. Davis, 766 F.2d 1452, 1458 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984). Reyes suggests that other circuits appear to require that the statements actually "assist the conspirators in achieving their objectives."

The significance lies entirely in the fact that the words were spoken. Thus, the statement does not fall within the Rule 801(c) definition of hearsay nor would the purposes of the hearsay rule be served by treating it as hearsay. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) (hearsay rule inapplicable to statement which was, by its nature, neither true nor false). B. FNCF Business Records

Finally, Gomez argues that the admission in evidence of Bradshaw's out-of-court statements violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. We note initially, however, that Gomez did not raise this objection at trial and that ordinarily a party may not present a Confrontation Clause objection for the first time on appeal. E.g., United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984). In any event, the ruling does not amount to plain error.

[Citation omitted.]" United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 515 (10th Cir.1984). Federal law is consistent with Kansas law, which allows sentencing provisions to be "liberally construed to the end that persons convicted of crime shall be dealt with in accordance with their individual characteristics, circumstances, needs, and potentialities as revealed by case studies."

Neither Bruton nor the confrontation clause was violated in this case because the declarant, Roy Wolf and Lorna Wolf all testified and were subject to cross-examination. See Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971); United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1984). III.

Id. at 504. See also United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. Wright, 783 F.2d 1091, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United States v. Rubin, 591 F.2d 278, 283 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 864, 100 S.Ct. 133, 62 L.Ed.2d 87 (1979); United States v. Kostoff, 585 F.2d 378, 380 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); United States v. Cline, 570 F.2d 731, 734-35 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Pate, 543 F.2d 1148, 1149 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. DeCarlo, 458 F.2d 358, 363-64 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 843, 93 S.Ct. 112, 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244, 251 n. 8 (2d Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969). The exception to the hearsay rule enunciated in Rule 803(3) only comes into play when the statement is undeniably hearsay because it is a direct and explicit declaration of state of mind, i.e., it is offered to prove the truth of the substance of what the declarant said. For example, "I intended to kill John" is hearsay if it is offered to