Hudson

*511 MEMORANDUM **

Corey J. Hudson appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The district court properly admitted Officer James Stradley’s expert testimony, which was relevant to whether Hudson had either direct possession of the Ruger or joint and constructive possession with the other occupants of the van. See Fed.R.Evid. 402; United States v. Carrasco, 257 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir.2001). The testimony thus “applied directly to [the defendant’s] motive and preparation” for the charged offense and did not pertain to “any specific, wrongful acts ... that [were] unrelated to” that offense. United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1995); see Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The district court carefully assessed the danger of unfair prejudice posed by Officer Stradley’s testimony and limited the scope of the testimony to those aspects of gang customs, behavior and loyalty that were strongly probative of Hudson’s possession of the firearm. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. Furthermore, the district court issued a limiting instruction emphasizing that the jury could not…