Beas-Nunez

*343 MEMORANDUM ***

The statutes under which Beas-Nunez was convicted, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 & 960, remain constitutional after Hams v. United States, 586 U.S. 545 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 , 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). United States v. Hernandez, 314 F.3d 430, 437-38 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting argument that Harris overruled United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) and United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2002)).

The testimony of the government expert witness on narcotics value that his duties involved investigation of drug smuggling organizations was not impermissible organization structure testimony within the meaning of United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.2001) or United States v. Pineda-Torres, 287 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have construed a cursory reference to the expert’s existing duties to imply that Beas-Nunez was a member of such an organization.

Beas-Nunez’s objections to various portions of the government’s closing argument are also without merit. The statements of which Beas-Nunez complains did not constitute impermissible vouching or expressions of personal opinion, but were…