With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". both instances the district court overruled the objections. 17 . Bonner contends that the government did not qualify or proffer the police officers as expert witnesses, and that their testimony must, therefore, be reviewed as opinion testimony of lay witnesses. We disagree. "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed.R.Evid. 702 (emphasis added). The record reflects that t officer’s testimony to indicate that Bonner’s actions were inconsistent with his claim that he was an innocent bystander. See Washington, 44 F.3d at 1283 & n. 44 (<HOLDING>). 20 . Bonner also contends that the officers’

A: holding that the district court was within its discretion not to order disclosure of the governments confidential informant where the informant only helped orchestrate the search that led to discovery of incriminating evidence not the crimes themselves and could not testify to any relevant fact
B: holding that because violence and danger are inherent in drug trafficking activity the court can reasonably infer that the informant cooperated under an implied assurance of confidentiality
C: holding five expert opinions by two government agents and the confidential informant regarding the operations and methods of drug trafficking not impermissible profile evidence because it was not offered for that purpose
D: holding that expert testimony regarding the structure of drug trafficking organizations was inadmissible in a nonconspiracy importation case
C.