United States v. Jorge Valenzuela-Ruiz

37 F.3d 1507 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge VALENZUELA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50567. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 4, 1994. Decided Oct. 13, 1994. Before: BROWNING, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Jorge Valenzuela-Ruiz (Valenzuela) asserts that the district court erred in refusing to permit him to present expert testimony of his predisposition to commit the crimes of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Valenzuela claims the expert supports his contention that he was entrapped by a government informant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the district court must determine whether the expert testimony will assist the trier of fact in drawing its own conclusions as to the fact in issue. 1 United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1411 (9th Cir.1993). "In United States v.…