[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13854

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDERSEN RABEL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20058-KMW-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 1 of 18
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Andersen Rabel appeals his conviction for possession of an 

unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d). After 

review, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 21, 2022, an undercover agent working for the 

Miami-Dade Police Department visited Miami Gun Shops, a licensed firearms dealer the agent had reason to believe was selling 

unregistered firearm silencers. As a federal firearms licensee 

(“FFL”), Miami Gun Shops could manufacture and sell firearms, 

including silencers, so long as it complied with federal law. Rabel 

worked at Miami Gun Shops and was designated as a “responsible 

person” at the store, meaning he could direct the business’s firearm 

policies and practices. 

The agent, who was wearing a concealed camera, approached Rabel and asked for the store’s owner, Manuel Reguiera. 

Reguiera was not at the store, so Rabel called him. Rabel gave the 

phone to the agent, and the agent asked Reguiera if he could purchase “soda cans”—slang for silencers. After speaking with Reguiera about the agent’s request, Rabel brought the agent to the back 

of the store to complete the sale. 

Once Rabel and the agent were in the back of the shop,

Rabel retrieved four packages labeled “9.5mm Monocore w[ith]

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 2 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 3

Booster.” The agent bought four of these “kits” from Rabel. Each 

of the kits contained four items. First, the kits contained a hollow 

metal tube that had an open hole on one end and a closed end cap 

on the other. These tubes contained monocore “baffling material”

that separated the inside of each tube into multiple small chambers. 

Second, the kits contained a “Nielsen device,” also called a 

“booster,” that was attached to the open end of the metal tube. 

Third, the kits contained a replacement end cap with a hole drilled 

through it that could be swapped with the closed cap attached to 

the tube. And fourth, the kits contained an Allen wrench that allowed the buyer to swap the caps. Before completing the sale, the 

agent asked Rabel if all four kits came with the replacement end 

cap. Rabel confirmed they did. The kits did not, however, have 

serial numbers on them and were unregistered. Rabel did not perform a background check on the agent and did not record the sale. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A grand jury later indicted Rabel, Reguiera, and Miami Gun 

Shops on several charges related to the unlawful possession and 

sale of firearms. In short, the indictment alleged that the kits Rabel 

sold to the agent were silencers, and therefore firearms, that were 

subject to federal regulation.1

 Relevant to this appeal, Rabel was 

indicted on one count of possession of an unregistered firearm in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d) (“Count Ten”); one count of 

1 A “firearm” includes “any silencer . . . as defined in section 921 of title 18, 

United States Code.” 26 USC § 5845(a).

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 3 of 18
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

transfer of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 

5861(e) (“Count Eleven”); and one count of failure by a federally 

licensed dealer to keep proper records in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(b)(5) (“Count Twelve”). 

Rabel moved to dismiss the indictment. As evidenced in his 

motion, Rabel’s defense largely centered on his claim that the tubes 

included with the kits were legal “solvent traps” used to “capture 

cleaning solvent.” He conceded that once the closed end cap was 

swapped for the replacement cap the tube operated as a silencer, 

but he argued that the tubes were not silencers until a person 

makes that swap. And building on this argument, he argued that 

Count Ten had to be dismissed because his position as a responsible person at an FFL allowed him to possesssolvent trapsthat, even 

if they could be turned into silencers, weren’t converted yet. The 

district court found that the issues raised by Rabel in the motion 

presented factual questions for the jury and therefore denied it. 

Both Rabel and the government filed motions in limine. 

Rabel moved to prevent the government from utilizing text messages and a video it retrieved from his cellphone. The video, which 

was sent to Rabel over text message, showed an unidentified person firing a gun with a silencer attached. Rabel responded to the 

video by saying that the “solvent trap” in it was “real quiet.” 

Rabel argued the text messages and video were unfairly prejudicial and could confuse the jury because they would lead the jury 

to believe that solvent traps didn’t have to be modified to work as 

silencers. Further, he argued that he was not disputing that solvent 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 4 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 5

traps could be turned into silencers, and, to the contrary, that it was 

legal to do so if they were properly registered. He also argued that 

the probative value of this evidence was weakened by the fact that 

the jury would not know whether the silencer in the video was legally converted into a silencer. And he argued that a video showing 

someone shooting a firearm with a silencer attached would prejudice the jury. The government argued that the video and text messages were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because Rabel’s use of the term “solvent trap” to refer to a silencer 

was relevant to whether he knew the kits were in fact silencers. 

The government’s motion sought to prevent Rabel from introducing evidence, including expert testimony, that the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) supposedly 

changed its enforcement practices and legal position on silencer 

conversion kits—including kits that allow buyers to convert solvent traps into silencers. This evidence included a letter issued by 

ATF to an unidentified individual about a month before Rabel 

made his sale that indicated ATF determined silencer conversion 

kits themselves qualify as silencers. It also included two letters that 

groups of Senators sent to ATF asking about ATF’s perceived policy change. The government argued that Rabel did not allege he 

relied on this evidence and that it was irrelevant to whether Rabel 

knew that the kits he sold were in fact silencers. Rabel responded 

that this evidence would show that ATF’s apparent policy change

left the public confused about the legal status of solvent traps and 

conversion kits and that this confusion was relevant to whether 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 5 of 18
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

Rabel knew that ATF considered conversion kits and solvent traps 

to be firearms. 

At a status conference before trial, the district court denied 

Rabel’s motion to exclude the government’s rule 404(b) evidence. 

As to the government’s motion in limine, the district court found 

that the evidence related to ATF’s perceived policy change on conversion kits was not relevant and granted the motion. 

At trial, the government offered the video recording of the 

sale through the testimony of the agent who visited Miami Gun 

Shops. The agent testified about his visit to the store, his conversation with Reguiera over the phone, and his transaction with 

Rabel. He also testified about a previous visit to Miami Gun Shops 

during which he discussed buying silencers from Reguiera. During 

this visit, Rabel walked in on the meeting between the two while 

Reguiera was disassembling a silencer to show the agent. 

The government also offered the testimony of Special Agent 

Andrea Randou, who extracted data from Rabel’s cellphone. Randou testified about a text message conversation between Rabel and 

another employee of Miami Gun Shops. As part of this exchange, 

Rabel described the contents of a package Miami Gun Shops received as “definitely smaller in diameter but [with] loads [of] staggered expansion chambers.” The other employee responded that 

his “can” was “bored at past that.” Randou testified that in her experience “can” is often used to refer to a silencer. She also testified 

about the text message exchange in which Rabel reacted to the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 6 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 7

video of the individual firing a silenced firearm and referred to the 

silencer as a “solvent trap.” 

Next, the government presented testimony from Cody Toy, 

an ATF firearms enforcement officer, who the government offered

as an expert witness on firearm identification and silencer design 

and theory. Toy testified that silencers commonly consist of an 

outer body, a set of end caps, an expansion chamber, and baffles. 

He explained that baffling material reduces the sound created 

when a firearm is discharged. Toy was “not . . . aware of” any purpose baffles serve other than silencing the sound of a firearm. He

also explained that the Nielsen device included in the kit is used to 

counteract the weight a silencer adds to a firearm’s barrel and allows a firearm to operate normally when a silencer is attached. 

Like his testimony about the baffling material, Toy was “[n]ot . . . 

aware of” any purpose a Nielsen device serves other than allowing 

a silenced firearm to shoot properly. Finally, Toy explained that he 

tested one of the kits Rabel sold to the agent. The completed device reduced the sound a firearm made by about fourteen decibels. 

Rabel moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the 

government’s case and argued that the government didn’t present 

sufficient evidence to prove he knew the kits he sold were silencers. 

The district court found that there was sufficient evidence to allow 

the jury to infer Rabel’s knowledge that the kits were silencers and 

denied the motion. 

Then, Rabel presented his defense. Rabel presented the testimony of Christopher Robinson, who he offered as an expert 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 7 of 18
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

witness on firearms, silencers, and firearm cleaning. Looking at 

one of the kits Rabel sold, Robinson opined that the device was a 

solvent trap and that the monocore baffle in the tube was used to 

catch debris when cleaning a firearm barrel. To support his conclusion that the kits were solvent traps, Robinson noted the tubes 

did not have certain features, like foam or holes within the tube, 

that many silencers have. Robinson conceded, however, that once 

the end caps within the kit were swapped the device operated as a 

silencer. 

The jury found Rabel guilty of possessing an unregistered 

silencer, and not guilty of the other counts. Rabel appeals his conviction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for 

an abuse of discretion. United States v. Estrada, 969 F.3d 1245, 1261 

(11th Cir. 2020). We generally review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 

2005). “[W]e review the evidence presented at trial in the light 

most favorable to the government, and we draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Bergman, 852 F.3d 1046, 1060 (11th Cir. 2017).

DISCUSSION

Rabel challenges his conviction by arguing: (1) the district 

court erred in denying his motion in limine and granting the government’s; (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 8 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 9

judgment of acquittal; and (3) the district court should have entered a judgment of acquittal because he could not be convicted of 

unlawfully possessing a firearm as the designated responsible person for his licensed firearms dealer. We address each argument in 

turn.

The District Court’s Evidentiary Rulings

Rabel argues that he should have been allowed to offer evidence about the ATF’s supposed policy change on the legality of 

solvent traps and silencer conversion kits. He contends that this 

evidence would have shown a “change in the law” about which he 

and the public were given insufficient notice. The ATF evidence, 

he says, would show that he lacked the requisite mens rea when he 

made the sale. We disagree. 

Relevant evidence is generally admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact 

is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

“Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.

It is unlawful “to receive or possess a firearm which is not 

registered to [the person] in the National Firearms Registration and 

Transfer Record.” 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The term “firearm” includes “any silencer []as defined in” 18 U.S.C. section 921. Id.

§ 5845(a). Under section 921, “any device for silencing, muffling, 

or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in 

assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 9 of 18
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication” is a 

“firearm silencer.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). 

To prove a violation of section 5861(d), the government 

must show that: (1) the defendant “possessed a ‘firearm’ within the 

meaning of 26 U.S.C. [section] 5845(a) of the National Firearms 

Act”; (2) he “knew the features of the firearm that brought it within 

the scope of the Act”; and (3) “the firearm was not registered to the 

defendant.” United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889, 903– 04 (11th Cir. 

2020). “The Supreme Court and this Court consistently have held 

that, although the requisite mens rea to prove a violation of [section] 5861(d) is ‘knowledge,’ that mens rea does not attach to each 

element of that offense.” Id. at 904. “[T]he government . . . need 

not prove that the defendant knew the weapon was unregistered[,] . . . . that the defendant knew his possession of the weapon 

was unlawful[,] or that he knew ‘what features define a “firearm”

under 26 U.S.C. [section] 5845(a).’” Id. (emphases omitted) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 253 F.3d 634, 638 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001)). The 

government only needs to “prove that the defendant was ‘aware 

that his weapon possess[ed] any of the features detailed in 26 U.S.C. 

[section] 5845(a).’” Id. at 904–05 (first alteration in original) (quoting Ruiz, 253 F.3d at 638).

Here, the district court properly concluded that Rabel’s evidence relating to ATF’s alleged policy change was irrelevant. Even 

if this evidence would have shown ATF changed its position on the 

legality of kits like the ones Rabel sold, causing confusion about 

the legality of the kits among the public, the evidence would still 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 10 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 11

be irrelevant to the mens rea our precedent requires. The government did not need to prove that Rabel “knew his possession of the 

[kits] was unlawful.” Id. at 904. It only needed to prove that Rabel

knew that the kits had the features that made them silencers under 

the statute. Id. at 904– 05. So, while Rabel maintains the evidence 

would have shown that he and the public did not have notice that 

the kits were illegal under the statute, that argument doesn’t help 

him here. The district court properly excluded the evidence.

Rabel’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion 

in limine also fails. He argues that the district court should have 

excluded the text messages and video pulled from his phone because they were not relevant to an issue at trial. As Rabel frames 

the issue, the government only used this evidence to prove that 

Rabel knew that solvent traps could be converted into silencers, 

which he has never disputed. And he argues that the video prejudiced the jury against him, and that any unfair prejudice is underscored by the fact that silencers can be legally obtained, the silencer 

in the video might have been legal, and the government did not 

present evidence showing that Rabel was involved in the event depicted in the video. We find no error in the admission of this evidence.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), “[e]vidence of any 

other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s 

character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person 

acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). 

But rule 404(b) evidence can be used “for another purpose, such as 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 11 of 18
12 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, 

identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 

404(b)(2). “The rule is ‘one of inclusion which allows extrinsic evidence unless it tends to prove only criminal propensity.’” United 

States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (alteration accepted) (quoting United States v. Stephens, 365 F.3d 967, 975 (11th 

Cir. 2004)).

“We employ a three-part test to determine whether a district 

court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior bad acts 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)[.]” United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1107 (11th Cir. 2010). “First, the evidence must 

be relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character. Second, as part of the relevance analysis, there must be sufficient proof 

so that a jury could find that the defendant committed the extrinsic 

act.” Id. (quoting United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535, 1538 (11th 

Cir. 1992) (en banc)). And “[t]hird, the probative value of the evidence must not be ‘substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must meet the other requirements of [r]ule 

403.’” Id. (quoting Miller, 959 F.2d at 1538). “In reviewing issues 

under [r]ule 403, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable 

to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its 

undue prejudicial impact.” United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 

1362 (11th Cir. 2006).

The district court appropriately admitted the text messages 

and video. First, the evidence was clearly relevant to whether 

Rabel knew the kits were silencers. Throughout his trial and 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 12 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 13

appeal, Rabel has consistently maintained that he believed that the 

kits were solvent traps. Evidence of Rabel referring to an apparent

silencer as a solvent trap was directly relevant to whether Rabel’s 

belief was sincere. Rabel appears to concede this much in his reply 

brief, stating that he does not argue the evidence wasn’t relevant. 

He also doesn’t dispute that he sent the message, so there was sufficient evidence that he sent it. 

Finally, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to 

its admission, its probative value as to Rabel’s knowledge was not 

substantially outweighed by whatever prejudicial effect it had in depicting an individual discharging a firearm. Notably, Rabel was acquitted of more charges than he was convicted, showing that any 

possible prejudicial effect did not influence the jury. Cf. United 

States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985) (noting that 

a partial acquittal “is telling proof that [the defendant] was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s [improper] remarks” (quotation omitted)). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when 

it allowed this evidence to be presented.

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

Rabel next argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he knew the silencers were firearms under the National 

Firearms Act, and he continues to argue that the devices were legal 

solvent traps that only became silencers once the end caps were 

swapped. The government responds that it presented sufficient 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 13 of 18
14 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

evidence that Rabel knew the kits had the features that allowed 

them to suppress the sound of a firearm. We agree with the government.

As discussed, the government only needed to prove that 

Rabel “knew the features of the firearm that brought it within the 

scope of the Act.” Wilson, 979 F.3d at 903–04. It did not need to 

prove that Rabel knew what defines a firearm under the statute. 

Id. A “firearm silencer” is “any device for silencing, muffling, or 

diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and 

any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” 18 

U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) (emphasis added). 

A district court must deny a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence “if ‘a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant’s

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Thompson, 610 

F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Descent, 

292 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir. 2002)). Because Rabel was found guilty, 

we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and the jury’s verdict. Bergman, 852 F.3d at 1060.

First, there was sufficient evidence that the kits were a “combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in 

assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer” to “silenc[e], muffl[e], 

or diminish[] the report of a portable firearm.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 921(a)(25). The government offered evidence that multiple 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 14 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 15

features of the kits—the baffles and the Nielsen device—only 

served to muffle the sound of a firearm discharge and allow a firearm to operate normally with a silencer attached. It also offered 

evidence that once the end caps were swapped the device could 

reduce the sound of a firearm by about fourteen decibels. And 

Rabel’s own expert testified that once the end caps were swapped 

the kit operated as a silencer. Finally, the government presented 

testimony that Rabel had previously witnessed the agent buying 

silencers from Reguiera. The jury therefore had more than enough 

evidence before it to determine that the kit was a silencer beyond 

a reasonable doubt.

Second, the government also presented extensive evidence 

that Rabel knew that the kits were silencers. The evidence showed

that Rabel sold the kits after the agent asked to buy “soda cans” and 

that “soda can” is known slang for silencers. One text message 

string presented at trial showed another individual using the term 

“can” to Rabel before he made the sale to the agent, which demonstrated that he was familiar with the term at the time. The evidence also showed that Rabel knew the contents of each kit. The 

package for each indicated that they contained a “[m]onocore 

w[ith] booster,” so a jury could find that Rabel knew they contained silencers given that these two components were used as 

parts for a silencer. And Rabel clearly knew each package contained the swappable end caps that allowed the buyer to make a 

fully functioning silencer—he assured the agent who purchased the 

kits that they did. Finally, while Rabel argued that he thought the 

packages contained solvent traps, the government’s rule 404(b) 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 15 of 18
16 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

evidence called the sincerity of that belief into question. Given this 

evidence, the district court correctly denied Rabel’s motion for 

judgment of acquittal.

Rabel’s counterarguments don’t compel a different conclusion. He repeats his contention that the government had to prove 

he knew the tubes were “in fact firearms that come within the ambit” of the statute and implies that the statute contains a scienter 

requirement. But, as we’ve already explained, under the possession-of-an-unregistered-silencer statute, he only needed to know 

the kits had the features that made them silencers. See Wilson, 979 

F.3d at 904. 

Rabel also argues that the swappable end caps don’t make 

the kits silencers because, as he sees it, the tubes aren’t silencers 

until the end caps are actually swapped. But that argument is contrary to the statute’s language, which defines the term “silencer” to 

mean “any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer”—and 

not just the assembled product. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

Because a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Rabel knew the kits had the features that made them silencers, the 

district court properly denied Rabel’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Rabel’s Status as a Responsible Person

Finally, Rabel argues that the district court should have entered a judgment of acquittal because Miami Gun Shops has a license to manufacture and distribute firearms. He contends that,

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 16 of 18
22-13854 Opinion of the Court 17

because Miami Gun Shops has an FFL license and he was a designated responsible person, he could possess solvent traps and 

weapon parts that were used to make firearms and could not illegally possess the kits he sold. Rabel also makes passing reference 

to the fact that he was acquitted of the other two counts he faced 

at trial and argues his acquittals are inconsistent with his guilty verdict. 

The problem for Rabel, as he recognizes in his reply brief, is 

that an unregistered silencer cannot be legally possessed even by a 

manufacturer. See 27 C.F.R. § 479.101 (“Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures . . . .”). Rabel’s entire challenge relies on his argument that 

the kits were not themselves firearms subject to regulation. But,

as we’ve already explained, a silencer is a firearm under the statute,

26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), and there was sufficient evidence at trial showing that the kits were in fact silencers. Because Rabel hasn’t 

demonstrated that Miami Gun Shops was entitled to possess these 

silencers, we are unpersuaded that his status as the store’s responsible person has any bearing on his conviction.

Rabel’s reference to the fact that he was acquitted of the 

other counts at trial doesn’t convince us otherwise. “[I]nconsistent 

jury verdicts are generally insulated from review because a jury 

may reach conflicting verdicts through mistake, compromise, or 

lenity[.]” United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 960–61 (11th Cir. 

2020) (quotation omitted). “[A]s long as the guilty verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, it must stand, even in the face of an 

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 17 of 18
18 Opinion of the Court 22-13854

inconsistent verdict on another count.” Id. (quoting United States 

v. Mitchell, 146 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 1998)). Therefore, even 

assuming the verdicts are inconsistent, they do not compel us to

vacate Rabel’s conviction, and we find no error.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13854 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024 Page: 18 of 18