present evidence sufficient to establish knowledge. Pineda-Tor-res was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. He appeals his convictions. II. ANALYSIS The case before us is, in almost all respects, similar to United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2001), in which we held that the admission of expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations violates Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 “whe[n] the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or whe[n] such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court.” See also United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McGowan, 274 F.3d 1251,
holding that scientific evidence must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence concerning admission of scientific testimony or evidence ie dre 401 402 403 702 and 703 and be relevant and reliable holding that expert testimony concerning the structure of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court holding that expert testimony regarding the structure of drug trafficking organizations was inadmissible in a nonconspiracy importation case holding that expert testimony concerning the structure of drug trafficking organizations was irrelevant and prejudicial in a border courier case and therefore inadmissible under federal rules of evidence 401 and 403 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