
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Gayl CASTRO-DELFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 19, 2015.
    Filed Dec. 17, 2015.
    Matthew Cassell, Ryan Ellersick, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Frank Jacobs, Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Gayl Castro-Delfin (“Castro”) appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We.affirm.

1. Because Officer Lopez participated in the questioning of Castro, the admission of Special Agent Monahan’s testimony about Officer Lopez’s translations of Castro’s statements raises some hearsay concerns. However, any error in admitting Special Agent Monahan’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of Castro’s guilt. This evidence included Castro’s statements to the Passport Control Unit, his recorded telephone conversations from the detention center, and the sheer quantity of methamphetamine he transported, with a total retail value of approximately $1 million. See United States v. Morales, 720 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir.2013).

2. The admission of Special Agent Monahan’s testimony about Officer Lopez’s translations did not violate the Confrontation Clause because Officer Lopez testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. See United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 558, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing a two-level sentence enhancement for Castro’s use of a “special skill.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Castro’s experience driving large tractor-trailers and his use of this skill in importing methamphetamine adequately support the district court’s sentence enhancement. See United States v. Mendoza, 78 F.3d 460, 465 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publica- • tion and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     