Does the court err in precluding expert testimony about the obligations of the parties under the loan agreement?

The district court did not err in precluding expert testimony about the obligations of the parties under the loan agreement, because, as the district court reasonably determined, that was a question for the jury to resolve. See United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101-03 (2d Cir. 1994).

Dupree contends that the bank officer who negotiated the agreement testified as an expert; however, that witness provided only his understanding of the agreement's terms, and

Page 4

the court instructed the jury accordingly. Cf. United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 294 (2d Cir. 2011).