emitting the strongest signal and cell towers in urban areas have a two-mile maximum range, and law enforcement officer’s lay testimony and maps regarding the defendant’s location based on cell phone records and cell sites); United States v. Henderson, 564 Fed.Appx. 352, 364 (10th Cir.2014) (nonprece-dential) (law enforcement agent’s plotting of the defendant’s locations through historical cell-site analysis was proper lay testimony so long as the agent did not testify about how cell towers operate), reh’g en banc granted, 624 Fed.Appx. 75 (4fh Cir.2015). Agent Raschke’s testimony in this case included statements about how cell phone towers operate. In our view, this fits easily into the category-of expert testimony, such that Rule 702 governs its admission. See Graham, 796 F.3d at 364 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673,
recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding historical cellsite analysis testimony about how cell phones and towers connect clearly based on scientific technical or specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702 quoting fed r evid 701c recognizing that the advisory committee notes suggest that a landowners opinion as to the value of the property could be offered under either fre 701 or fre 702 presumably depending on the level of experience training or specialized knowledge that went into formulating the opinion quoting fed r evid 702