Saxton

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Saxton appeals his convictions for importation of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), or aiding and abetting those crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Saxton contends that the district court violated Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 by admitting expert testimony concerning the organizational structure of drug trafficking organizations. Because the facts are known to the parties, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Saxton asserts that the district court’s evidentiary ruling should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but because he failed to timely object to the expert testimony, we review for plain error. United States v. Hanley, 190 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir.1999). Under that test, before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. See United States v. Cotton, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). If all three…