the jury could have concluded that [the defendant] was not a typical or representative person, who possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia involved.” 307 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Anchrum, 590 F.3d 795, 804-05 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming, in a case where the defendant was charged with the possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, the district court’s admission of expert testimony that “if you’re driving around with a loaded weapon and you have narcotics in your car, ... [y]ou’re either going to use [the weapon]” to get away from law enforcement, as protection against getting “rip[ped] ... off’ in a drug deal gone bad, or to protect money earned through drug deals); United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501-02 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mohammed testified about the kind of
holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding that it was not plain error for the district court to admit an experts testimony that it was his opinion that approximately 200000 worth of cocaine was possessed with intent to distribute and not for personal use holding that omission was not plain error holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion