of testimony interpreting drug code words, such expert testimony may unfairly provide the government with an additional summation by having the expert interpret the evidence, and may come dangerously close to invading the province of the jury.” Emmanuel, 565 F.3d at 1335-36. Given the extensive recordings and the length of Agent Bryant’s investigation, Mallety has not shown that the district court plainly erred by failing to exclude any of Agent Bryant’s testimony. First, the district court did not err by permitting Agent Bryant to give her opinion as to the meaning of specific terms, such as numbers, that Mallety and others used in the recorded conversations. An expert witness may testify to the meaning of specific terms used in recorded conversations. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d at 1336 (<HOLDING>); Brown, 872 F.2d at 392 (holding that the
holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that the district court did not err by admitting an expert law enforcement officers testimony that the codes and jargon heard in the defendants recorded conversations referred to drug trafficking holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle holding admissible police officers testimony that firearms are commonly used in drug trafficking holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to ask whether prospective jurors would place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants