Opinion ID: 202748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Victor Kareh

Text: 34 Finally, appellants assert that Victor Kareh (the assistant vice president of the construction loan department from 1980 to 1990) was permitted . . . to opine about what the project documents and ledger cards indicated, without any clear memory of the events and mixing summary testimony with what was improper expert testimony. To support this proposition, appellants cite to three thirty-page sections of the trial transcript, without specifying the testimony to which they object or the grounds for their objections. Although Kareh did not author all of the documents about which he testified, this in itself is not a basis for excluding his testimony about the documents. Without developed argumentation on this issue, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Kareh's testimony. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990)([I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.).