government called expert witness and based on his testimony was quite clear from those facts that the government  have apart from that is that he was driving a vehicle which he previously owned and sold to another individual who asked him to cross across the border for him because he did not have one the proper documentation to show the vehicle was has transferred title had not tak assuming that he did and that's the reason why he did it and he replied ok but in response to that it's really a look as testified that what he did was put his head down because he realized there were drugs  go and he was asked to follow the officer into another room and in fact that's what he did apart from that it's on your own you obviously all of these officers can testify as to what they believe is happening but m us may know statements whatsoever indicate that he had knowledge of the drugs were in the vehicle and the contrary he did indicate that he was going to king mark but prior to going to kmart he was going directly across the border no more than three hundred met and part of what he used to do to make extra money was going to phoenix arizona which is about one hundred twenty miles from the border and purchased vehicles that actions or any other locations when he would return to mexico he would sell those cars he had a truck that an individual wanted to buy from your case in all the other cases particularly because the officers for the agent testified that drug traffickers do not use drivers that they do not do not know about narcotics contained in a vehicle made hasn't happened that i would think that would be appropriate if he says based on my experience in the cases that i've looked at i would think that that's appropriate but when you go a little step further you say it's never happened it doesn't happen it's not ever going to happen then you're talking about a case border we have cases even now where drug traffickers are telling individuals that they need to transport a vehicle crossing one slowly for the purpose of taking that vehicle so that it can be used to transport illegal aliens now these individuals that transport that vehicle don't see anything believe that in fact they may be doing something wrong but they believe that they are just taking a vehicle cross and i said could be used later on to transport illegal and what we find is that there are drugs in the the realities are that if you have an expert testimony experts testimony and that expert is testifying that it is not likely and that individuals are reluctant to do it that's far far cry on top of the case law he was looking at pena to tourists he was quoting from it and he also explained the differences between what the government with seeking to admit in this case and that and  and what the government was seeking to admit as a district court noted was only what this court had permitted and mario i respectfully disagree with counsel's characterization of the expert testimony in this case the expert testified several times that this was in his opinion drug traffickers do not intrust large amounts of drugs to on winning careers additionally the defendant in his opening brief suggest this was not a large amount of cocaine and the answer is actually it was the expert testified it's worth eighty nine thousand dollars in tucson which would triple by the time you went to the midwest if you times that by the thirty eight pounds of cocaine that's well over a million dollars worth of cocaine and that's what in explained the reasons why trafficker would not want to relinquish control of the drugs to someone who didn't know what was going on and all of the testimony related to control and before that was admitted the district court if the person who put the drugs in the vehicle lost control of the car and did not have power over that particular vehicle it all came down to the notion of what happens and the mechanic you're talking about i believe that that was brought out in the context of what would happen if you let this be his call out of your spite in terms of getting the drugs later if this person didn't know what was going on that you would have to surveil to see a culture twenty four hours a day to figure out when you're going to actually get the drugs out and that's what that testimony was narrowly focused on and i think that is permissible under mario because this court noted that the agent was able to testify whether in his experience drug traffickers interested i'm quoting on page eleven seventy seven whether drug traffickers intrusted thousands of dollars of drugs to couriers who didn't know they were transporting and number two why  his experience drug traffickers didn't do so that whole control explanation was the why why it would be that drug traffickers would not intrust large amounts of drugs to someone who didn't know what they were doing because then you would have to have somebody who would be surveilling the car twenty four hours a day and trying to assess how it is they would get it and what would be and entailed in removing the drugs from a gas tank where it had been secreted and that's where the mechanic came in you have to have somebody who would be able to do it really fast without the driver knowing what was going on so all of that testimony relates to why it is that that particular individual with need to know what's going on and i'm real charged with between them better than i can i think your honor and this is what this is the language of the district court quoted at s t r eight our decision in rio does not require a different result mario did not involve expert testimony about the structure of drug a drug possession case involving over a million dollars worth of drugs to attack the defendant's defense that he was simply an unknowing courier that's exactly what we had in this case and the government was very specific with the court about what it was going to with less what the government did elicit that  the different values that are added in different costs of the current theory devalue yes and the part about the mechanic that was done in the context of trying to explain what would someone would need to do in order to keep track of a car a drug trafficker what order to keep track of a car when the driver doesn't know what's going on so i think it's important to see this case in the context of the evidence that was presented in context of the defense and the facts that we had drugs in a gas tank so that was what the mechanic was about with trying to explain that in order to harmless i got into that in great detail in the brief i'd like to lest a few reasons why it is that this defendant skill was proven beyond reasonable doubt even if that hadn't been admitted we have the defendant crossing the border he has the thirty eight pounds of cocaine in his modified gas tank in this case was if you open up the tank and you fill it if you were to fill it with gas you would know right away that it was not a legal gas tank there were fresh paint on the nolt the fresh paint on the nuts and bolts of the gas tank the defendants really nervous and shaking when he's talking to the officer and it was testimony that he was a frequent border crosser so there would have been a reason for him not to be used to the routine at the border additionally that part that one of one of you asked about the nervousness on the part of the defendant or what happened did he make a statement when the agents reaching behind the gas tank and before any drugs are visible you know after he touches what's behind you know the defendant's looking at him in his eyes are really large it was described that that look of concern and then when the agent finds the drugs before again they're visible he walks over the fence ok ok and he deflates on himself in a way that suggests that he knew what was there and it was sort of like you got me look and additionally the defendant in this case took the stand and as this court has noted on several occasions when a defendant takes the stand he's incredible then that is additional evidence of guilt here are the reasons why the defense testimony was not credible he stated first of all that he tried to explain why it is that he would have admitted that he owned a vehicle when he actually allegedly now when he testified he didn't know that he did know the drugs were there and he said he sold the car now that again is a conflict between what occurred at the at the district i mean at the port  entry additionally he says that he sold the vehicle to a gentleman and he doesn't know where that gentleman lives additionally he said he lied to the inspector at the port of entry because he thought he was going to incur some kind of charges for tone in the car but on  he admitted that that wouldn't apply to this car he's driving across the border when asked so there would be no reason for you to lie at the port of entry he says you're right so then after that we have the testimony these probably sells this car yet the free once you with which the car crosses the border doesn't change in light of the tech century so that the jury could reasonably conclude that he hadn't sold the car because the frequency with which you cross the border hadn't really changed he also says that he knew inspector malin that he'd seen a many times the across the port in that's not true defend it stated that he saw him wearing a hollowing mask on one occasion the agent said i would be when i'm asked on duty that's not accurate so the bottom line is there were all sorts of reasons why the jury could conclude this defendant was lying and aside from the presence of the marijuana in the car and the minimally probative testimony regarding his nervous mask and this was a border patrol agent whose notes contain significant omissions and a name other than to the defendants i mean we don't have that here and the improper expert testimony imputing knowledge was the goal and it's improving knowledge of his implied connection to an international drug trafficking organization again we don't we don't have a drug trafficking organization testimony in this case we have i would incur your testimony which is precisely what this court authorized in rio and for all of the reasons i think i've explained in the briefs this court should not reverse a conviction the evidence was admissible under this court's case law and there was more than sufficient evidence to convict just  wheel of a car with illegal substances in that car is told there's something in the vehicle that's what he said even before it's clearly a direct opinion of the defendant's guilt so even before gets a chance to testify the jury's already thinking about that we know that because the jurors were allowed to ask questions in this case and before he mr curry looks testifies they are already asking that the jurors are really asking does he see his friend on a regular basis and does he know what is going on with the truck that he know about the paint job in the fuel tank they're really asking a number of questions tell me what you think of that testimony that came in was testimony issues which have nothing to do with transportation then the government starts asking this particular expert witness about transportation issues about control issues so now we get a whole bunch of involved in an organization that was unnecessary didn't have to happen i believe the only thing that had to happen was this individual testified that he had an expert opinion based on his experience