With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by denying the admission at trial of affidavits Zahn contends supported his case. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) and 804(a); cf. Mutuelles Untes v. Kroll & Linstrom, 957 F.2d 707, 713 (9th Cir.1992) (explaining that, to be admissible under Fed. R.Evid. 804, affidavits require more than an oath alone to guarantee the trustworthiness of the affiant). The district court also did not abuse its discretion by admitting letters from Zahn’s physician and psychologist. See Chuyon Yon Hong v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that the exclusionary rule “is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights” in criminal cases) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1456 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). We decline to consider Zahn’s contentions

A: holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
B: holding evidence properly admitted as nonhearsay during trial in a title vii action to show nondiscriminatory intent
C: holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
D: holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial
B.