
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Son V. TRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30226
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 Seattle, Washington
    Filed December 14, 2017
    Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brent Aldrich Hart, Attorney, Law Office of Brent Hart, Seattle, WA, Kristen Virginia Murray, Attorney, Hart Jarvis Chang PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Son Tran (“Tran”) appeals his conviction on multiple counts of drug distribution and conspiracy, following a nine-day jury trial. He contends the court erred by permitting Detective Brandon James (“James”) to testify as both an expert and percipient witness without properly instructing the jury how to evaluate such “dual role” testimony. See United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).

At trial, there was no objection to James’s testimony on this basis and no request for a curative instruction; the alleged error is thus reviewed for plain error, and Tran bears the burden of establishing that any error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Even assuming James’s testimony impermissibly mixed lay and expert opinions, and that the court erred by not giving the jury a specific instruction on the dual role testimony, Tran cannot establish that the alleged error was prejudicial. There was a plethora of other evidence supporting the convictions, including videos, wiretap recordings, surveillance photos, as well as testimony by both an informant and a co-defendant that largely duplicated the detective’s testimony. See United States v. Torralba-Mendia, 784 F.3d 652, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2015). The error did not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial. Id. at 661.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     