Whether the district court improperly allowed the admission of lay witness testimony identifying the defendant's voice, and whether the appellate court improperly affirmed the district court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L. Numerous lay witnesses were allowed to “identify” Mr. Carey’s voice on recorded telephone calls despite a lack of reliability in the identification process and their testimony. Did the district court improperly allow the admission of this evidence and did the appellate court improperly affirm the district court? I. An agent was allowed to testify as an opinion witness and interpret telephone calls despite not knowing anything about the geographic area the drug distribution supposedly occurred in. Did the district court improperly allow the admission of this testimony and did the appellate court improperly affirm the district court? Ill. The government secured an order for a wiretap under Title III despite that the necessity requirement was not met. Did the district court improperly deny the motion to suppress and did the appellate court improperly affirm the district court? IV. The district court improperly gave a constructive possession jury instruction when evidence did not support this instruction. Did the district court improperly give this instruction to the jury and did the appellate court improperly affirm the district court? V. The district court found Mr. Carey responsible for five kilograms or more of cocaine, but there was insufficient evidence presented to warrant this drug quantity level. Did the trial court improperly determine this drug quantity when sentencing Mr. Carey and did the appellate court improperly affirm the district court? ii