In Contreras v. State, 7 P.3d 917 (Wyo. 2000), the defendant argued the trial court erred when it allowed a deputy to explain procedures used to ensure the reliability of drug buys, and to testify those procedures were followed in that case. He claimed this testimony was improperly used to bolster the testimony of an informant. Applying the plain error standard, the Court concluded Mr. Contreras could not show a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated by admission of the testimony; therefore, there was no plain error.