Hamilton

MEMORANDUM *

Hamilton appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. We affirm.

First, Hamilton argues that the district court erred in excluding his eyewitness expert testimony because the government failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and, as a result, he was not required to comply with Rule 16(b)(1)(C), given its reciprocal nature. The district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.1997). The district court found that the government’s compliance under Rule 16 was “lousy” and only allowed limited testimony from its expert; therefore, it is questionable whether the district court could have relied on the Rule 16 violation if it offered no other reason to exclude the expert testimony. The district court held, however, that apart from any Rule 16 violation, Hamilton’s expert testimony did not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and that the disclosure regarding the nature of the expert testimony was untimely and therefore…