Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Id. Oriedo objected that this was an undisclosed expert opinion, so the government withdrew the question and rephrased to ask whether the agent was “personally concerned” about the presence of two vehicles. Id. The agent responded in the affirmative because “more than one vehicle ... raises concerns about being countersurveillance [sic].” Id. (omission and bracketed text in original). We concluded that this was lay testimony under Rule 701 because, although the agent’s “specialized knowledge informed his mental state, he was not called upon to testify generally about narcotics counter-surveillance practices or to offer an explicit opinion that what he observed was counter-surveillance.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820, 831-32 (7th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, Agent Labno’s experience with the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment (B) holding that agent could testify as to his impressions of intercepted telephone conversations under rule 701 because he was explaining coded  words and phrases that were unique such that his understanding came only as result of things he had perceived not from specialized knowledge (C) holding that individuals could not maintain action against private citizens and law enforcement officers who intercepted individuals cordless telephone conversations as users of cordless telephone did not have justifiable expectation of privacy for their conversations (D) holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live (E) holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue
Output (English): holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue