MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Son Tran (“Tran”) appeals his conviction on multiple counts of drug distribution and conspiracy, following a nine-day jury trial. He contends the court erred by permitting Detective Brandon James (“James”) to testify as both an expert and percipient witness without properly instructing the jury how to evaluate such “dual role” testimony. See United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).

At trial, there was no objection to James’s testimony on this basis and no request for a curative instruction; the alleged error is thus reviewed for plain error, and Tran bears the burden of establishing that any error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Even assuming James’s testimony impermissibly mixed lay and expert opinions, and that the court erred by not giving the jury a specific instruction on the dual role testimony, Tran cannot establish that the alleged error was prejudicial. There was a plethora of other evidence supporting the convictions, including videos, wiretap recordings, surveillance photos, as well as testimony by both an informant and a co-defendant that largely duplicated the detective’s testimony. See United States v. Torralba-Mendia, 784 F.3d 652, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2015). The error did not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial. Id. at 661.

AFFIRMED.