The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Marcos worked at a barbershop. In 2016, Marcos became a paid informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He received cash payments and deportation deferrals renewed annually so long as he remained an informant. Over a two-month period in late 2017, D and Marcos partnered to sell drugs. D delivered pills containing fentanyl, and Marcos, under the DEA's direction, paid D and pretended to resell the pills to customers in North Carolina. There were five transactions. When agents arrested D, he had 1,100 pills on him. D claimed he was entrapped. Trial evidence included government recordings of meetings and phone calls between D and Marcos, all of which post-date the agreement to partner. D boasted of his experience selling drugs, telling Marcos, for example, that 'with me there will always be many good things,' and 'I'm only 24 . . . but I'm not new at this.' Special Agent Daniel Son, who had surveilled D at the September 21 and 27 deals, also testified. Over D's objection, Agent Son opined on rebuttal that D, unlike the 'average drug dealer,' appeared to be 'experienced' because he had employed countersurveillance driving techniques (which consisted of really bad driving). Agent Son cited his experience conducting narcotics investigations. D was convicted and appealed in part on the admission of Agent Son’s testimony.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.