Question not identified.

1. Whether the First Circuit erred in affirming the admission of expert witness testimony that encouraged the jury to convict Mr. Pires because the testimony of percipient witnesses was similar to “typical” sex trafficking as described by the expert witness and in failing to recognize the dangers of such profiling testimony? 2. Whether the First Circuit erred in applying plain -error review to appellate claim s that certain categories of testimony were inadmissible where Mr. Pires had objected below to the admission of testimony in those categories based on specified Rules of Evidence?