context: On appeal, Relators argue that the email attachment should have been admitted because it was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, cf. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), and because the attachment was admissible under the hearsay exemption for party admissions, see Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Relators did not sufficiently raise these arguments in the district court and, accordingly, have waived them.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 269 F.3d 439, 453
citation_a.parenthetical: evidence is properly excluded when alternative theory of admissibility is not timely offered
citation_a.sentence: See Jimenez v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439, 453 (4th Cir.2001) (evidence is properly excluded when alternative theory of admissibility is not timely offered); see also Wheatley v. Wicomico Cnty., 390 F.3d 328, 334 (4th Cir.2004) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 390 F.3d 328, 334
citation_b.parenthetical: issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances
citation_b.sentence: See Jimenez v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439, 453 (4th Cir.2001) (evidence is properly excluded when alternative theory of admissibility is not timely offered); see also Wheatley v. Wicomico Cnty., 390 F.3d 328, 334 (4th Cir.2004) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances).