Pedregon

MEMORANDUM **

John Paul Pedregón appeals his jury conviction and sentence for (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A), and (2) possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a). We affirm.

Law enforcement officers may be both expert and lay witnesses and can testify as to the meaning of drug jargon. See United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 901-05 (9th Cir.2007). Given the extensive training and experience of the law enforcement witness in narcotics trafficking investigations, including his experience in this particular investigation, we “can discern from the record that the witness could have been qualified as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” United States v. Mendoza, 244 F.3d 1037, 1046 (9th Cir.2001). Further, the witness sufficiently explained his methodology for interpreting the drug jargon used in this case, and Pedregón had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness about his opinions. Therefore, admission of the testimony was not plain error

The prosecutor’s questions regarding…