NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                             _____________

                                  No. 10-2982
                                 _____________

                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                        v.

                           MANUEL CHIRENO-GIL,
                                       Appellant
                              _____________

                On Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                      District Court No. 2-09-cr-00801-001
                District Judge: The Honorable Timothy J. Savage
                                 _____________

                Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                              September 14, 2011

          Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                           (Filed: September 19, 2011)
                            _____________________

                                   OPINION
                            _____________________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

      A grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Manuel Chireno-Gil,

charging him with attempted possession with the intent to distribute five kilograms


                                         1
or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). After the close

of the government’s case in chief, Chireno-Gil moved for a judgment of acquittal

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). The United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion. Thereafter, the jury

found Chireno-Gil guilty as charged. Chireno-Gil renewed his motion under Rule

29(c) to no avail. The District Court sentenced Chireno-Gil to, inter alia, 120

months’ imprisonment.         This timely appeal followed, challenging the District

Court’s denial of the Rule 29 motion.1 We will affirm.

       We “review[] the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government and must credit all available inferences in favor of the

government.” United States v. Riddick, 

, 509 (3d Cir. 1998).                  If a

rational juror could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt, we must sustain the verdict. United States v. Cartwright, 

, 286

(3d Cir. 2004).

       Chireno-Gil contends that the District Court erred because the government

failed to offer evidence that permits an inference that he knew he was tendering

money in exchange for a controlled substance. The District Court denied the

motion summarily. After consideration of the government’s case-in-chief, we

conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable

1
  The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
                                              2
doubt that Chireno-Gil knew that the “50 kilos,” which he was about to receive in

exchange for a backpack full of $35,000 in cash, were controlled substances. We

will affirm.




                                        3