Quezada

MEMORANDUM *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A. “Lookout” Testimony

Quezada did not object to the witness’s “lookout” reference and the blinking light allusion did not constitute a “highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.” 1 Accordingly, there was no plain error warranting a new trial.

B. Vienna Convention Violation

At the time the district court considered the import of the authorities’ Vienna Convention violation, the law was more favorable to Quezada than it is now. In light of this court’s en banc opinion in United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 3 it would be inappropriate to remand the case to the district court with instructions to accord still more weight in the voluntariness analysis to the authorities’ failure to advise Quezada of his right to contact his consulate.

C. Expert Testimony

We reject Quezada’s various arguments regarding Agent Bench’s expert testimony.

United States v. Alatorre 4 involved testimony strikingly similar to that at issue here, and in that case, we held that trial courts are not compelled to conduct pretrial hearings in order to discharge their gatekeeping function. 5 Thus, the district court’s refusal to…