Eljammal

MEMORANDUM **

Moustapha Lotfi Eljammal appeals his conviction and sentence, raising nine different issues. We reverse his conviction *291 on one count of the indictment, but affirm the conviction on the remaining counts and also affirm the sentence.

1. Evidence of “other cars”

The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to present evidence of “other cars” not included in specific substantive charges. The overarching “conspiracy” charge encompassed all the illegal acts that Eljammal allegedly conspired to commit. We have held that a conspiracy’s underlying criminal acts are “inextricably intertwined” with the conspiracy charge, and therefore that evidence of these acts can be introduced as intrinsic to the conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v. Lillard, 354 F.3d 850, 854 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the theft of the so-called “other cars” was a central activity of the conspiracy. Since these thefts were themselves crimes, they are underlying criminal bases for the conspiracy charge. Therefore, evidence relating to the “other cars” is admissible.

2. Competency of the MVD witnesses

The MVD witnesses were competent. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 states that someone is…