guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Young, 906 F.2d 615, 618 (11th Cir.1990). Furthermore, we are “bound by the jury’s credibility determinations, and by its rejection of the inferences raised by the defendant.” United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1268 (11th Cir.2005). To convict a defendant of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements: “(1) that the defendant was a convicted felon, (2) that the defendant was in knowing possession of a firearm, and (3) that the firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce.” Beckles, 565 F.3d at 841 (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). In considering the evidence, it is reasonable
holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding police officers uncontradicted testimony that defendant admitted he acquired shotgun for protection sufficient to establish knowing possession holding the evidence sufficient to establish the defendants knowing possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt when among other things the defendant admitted to a law enforcement officer that he had acquired the shotgun for his protection and that officers testimony went uncontradicted at trial