disregarded entirely. I R., Doc. 56 at 24. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert’s testimony regarding his specialized knowledge of drug quantities. Mr. Mundy also contends there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute. On appeal, we review the record de novo, United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir.1999), to determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential ir.1985) (“The quantity of the drug possessed is a circumstance which may permit the inference that the possessor intended to sell, deliver, or otherwise distribute.”); United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382, 1397 n. 17 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DuFriend, 691 F.2d 948, 952
holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana