were customarily used by narcotics dealers for drug-distribution purposes); United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 611-13 (9th Cir.1987) (upholding admissibility of expert testimony that apartment rented by another was used by defendant as narcotics “stash pad,” that ledgers found in apartment contained names of cocaine customers, and that exchange of packages witnessed by police officers constituted delivery of narcotics for money), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 968, 108 S.Ct. 1243, 99 L.Ed.2d 441 ( 82 (2d Cir.1983) (sustaining admission of expert testimony concerning quantity and purity of heroin used by addicts in context of defendants’ contention that heroin seized was imported for personal use and not for distribution); United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1335-36 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044, 103 S.Ct. 464,
holding admissible expert testimony that defendants actions were consistent with role of lookout in drugdistribution conspiracy holding testimony admissible as showing context of relationship with coconspirator prior to conspiracy holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine