Duarte

MEMORANDUM **

Rachel Duarte appeals her conviction and 33-month sentence following a jury trial conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Duarte contends that the district court erred in allowing Agent Bernard’s expert testimony because it was impermissible drug organization testimony. We review the district court’s admission of Agent Bernard’s testimony for plain error because Duarte did not object at trial and because the district court granted her pretrial motion to exclude expert testimony regarding drug organizations. See United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (stating that this Court reviews for plain error when an issue is not objected to below); United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir.2000) (“Absent a thorough examination of the objection raised in the motion in limine and an explicit and definitive ruling by the district court that the evidence is admissi *225 ble, a party does not preserve the issue of admissibility for appeal absent a contemporaneous…