Oliver

MEMORANDUM ***

A jury convicted appellant John F. Oliver of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), and possession of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 844 (a). Oliver appeals only the felon in possession charge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail except as necessary. Oliver argues that the district court erred by receiving in evidence the opinion testimony of Mendocino County Sheriff Sergeant Bruce Smith. The testimony in issue consisted of Smith’s opinion that various items found in Oliver’s car were consistent with “poaching” — an illegal, two-person form of hunting. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000). “Evidentiary rulings will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if such nonconstitutional error more likely than not affected the verdict.” Id. at 1167 .

Oliver’s arguments concerning the Smith testimony boil down to two: First, Oliver contends that Smith was not qualified to express an opinion about the combined significance of the various items…