Leung

MEMORANDUM *

David Leung appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (“Ecstacy”) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He appeals the admission of expert testimony regarding unknowing couriers, the admission of his post-arrest statements, the district court’s refusal to give a “mere presence” instruction to the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of a sentencing adjustment.

Because Leung claimed to have unknowingly possessed over twenty-eight thousand Ecstacy pills, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony that drug traffickers do not entrust large quantities of drugs to couriers without alerting them to the contents of their parcels. See United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1177 (9th Cir.2001). No unfair prejudice resulted because the expert did not discuss the various roles of individuals in a hypothetical drug trafficking organization. See Cordoba, 104 F.3d at 229 ; see also Murillo, 255 F.3d at 1177 .

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting Leung’s…