the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 970 (1st Cir.1995). That means that the Court must “resolve all evidentia-ry conflicts and credibility questions in the prosecution’s favor; and, moreover, as among competing inferences, two or more of which are plausible, the judge must choose the inference that best fits the prosecution’s theory of guilt.” Id. When, as here, the Court reserves decision on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the Court “must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.” ■ Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(b). Thus, that decision will not affected by intervening verdicts of acquittal on other counts. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bucuvalas, 909 F.2d 593, 597
holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error holding that in resolving sufficiency of evidence appeals court does not weigh evidence or review credibility of witnesses holding that sufficiency of the evidence review should be independent of the jurys determination that evidence on another count was insufficient holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial