did not have to accept the testimony of the expert. Agent Zimmer then testified that he studied the VIN number from the victim’s ear, and determined that the vehicle had been manufactured in Japan and was later transported to a dealership located in Memphis, Tennessee. On appeal, Glover contends that the admission of Agent Zimmer’s testimony on an element of the crime was prejudicial. She argues that Agent Zimmer’s conclusion that the victim’s car was manufactured in Japan, and had therefore necessarily traveled in foreign commerce, should have been left for the jury to determine. Glover contends that Agent Zimmer usurped the role of the jury by substituting his conclusion for their own regarding the existen 4 L.Ed.2d 960 (1996); United States v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 618 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ware, 914 F.2d at 1002-03
recognizing that deadly weapon finding may be made even when weapon used is unknown holding that an expert may testify regarding the place of manufacture of a weapon in order to establish whether the weapon traveled in interstate commerce holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon recognizing scarborough holding that commerce nexus satisfied upon showing that possessed firearm had traveled at some time in interstate commerce