Opinion ID: 2710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 8 Lombardozzi challenges the sufficiency of the government's evidence with respect to two elements of the crimes for which he was convicted. The first is the victim Leung's understanding that the loans he received were extortionate, an essential element for conviction under § 892. The second is Lombardozzi's own state of mind with respect to the extortionate nature of the loans and their collection, an essential element for conviction under both §§ 892 and 894. 9 As we have repeatedly observed, a defendant raising an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction faces a `heavy burden,' because we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor. United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir.2004). This deferential standard is especially important when reviewing a conviction of conspiracy . . . . because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case `where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel.' United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Provenzano, 615 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1980)). Reversal is warranted only if no rational factfinder could have found the crimes charged proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Gaskin, 364 F.3d at 459-60. 10