Price and Michael Mitchell as experts. Again, the Defendant restates his arguments from a previous motion on the same issue. See Def. Motion in Limine to Bar Qualification of Experts and Expert Testimony (d/e 101). The Court adopts the facts and findings of its previous opinion denying the Defendant’s motion and, holds that Ellen Price -and Michael Mitchell qualify as experts. Therefore, the Court finds that it did not err in denying the Defendants motion in limine. See Opinion (d/e 137) at 17-23. 6. The Court Did Not Err By Excluding the Defendant’s Exhibits and Witnesses. The Defendant next argues that the Court erred by excluding the Defendant’s exhibits and witnesses prior to trial. The Défendant’s argument mirrors his argument for acquittal based on Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d 127 (<HOLDING>). The Defendant claims that he was prevented
holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that the government did not present sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict in a  2251 case because the government did not provide evidence to prove that the defendant intended to create a visual depiction of the sexual conduct holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence