personal involvement in the case.” 798 F.3d at 381. Additionally, the court found that “few of the challenged statements could be characterized as (1) arguing the government’s case or (2) offering interpretations of plain English language.” Id. For these reasons,' the testimony was admissible. Id.; see also United States v. Williamson, 656 Fed.Appx. 175, 187 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Although [the agent] testified that he had listened to ‘over thousands of phone calls’ and often .used the pronoun ‘we’ when discussing the investigation, he made clear his active role in the surveillance.... He had the firsthand knowledge necessary to give lay opinion testimony.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1119, 197 L.Ed.2d 185 (2017); United States v. Smith, 609 Fed.Appx. 340, 347 (6th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). More recently, this court held that the
holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted holding that when a law enforcement officer testifies using technical terms but based on his personal knowledge of a relevant investigation the officer testifies as a lay witness holding that agent who interpreted the conversations based on personal knowledge as opposed to his general involvement in the investigation gave permissible lay witness testimony holding that it was error to allow a police officer who was admitted as a lay witness after a prosecution motion to admit him as an expert was denied for lack of timeliness to give testimony as to a matter about which he had no personal knowledge holding that lay testimony is competent if it is limited to matters that the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the witnesss personal knowledge