Opinion ID: 822821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Bankoff contends that no reasonable jury could find him guilty on Count Three.2 For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and must sustain a jury’s verdict if a reasonable jury believing the government’s evidence could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the government proved all the elements of the offenses.” United States v. Rosario, 118 F.3d 160, 163 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). This places “a very heavy burden” on appellant. Id. In support of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, Bankoff argued before the District Court that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his conduct constituted a “true” threat against Robinson or that he acted with the requisite intent. Based on the record, we conclude that a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bankoff’s statements constituted a threat to Robinson and that Bankoff acted with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with Robinson with respect to the performance of her official duties. We thus affirm the District Court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal on Count Three.