Ballesteros had already had prior experience with this country’s legal system. On the facts of this case, the government’s evidence as to the voluntariness of Ballesteros’ reentry is both uncontested and persuasive, and it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s verdict would have been the same even with an instruction on voluntariness of the reentry. The government’s evidence, although circumstantial, is more than enough when weighed only against defense counsel’s imaginative speculations without a suggestion of evidentiary support in the record. Given the persuasive and uncontested evidence that Ballesteros’ reentry was voluntary, the district court correctly denied Ballesteros’ motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Hinton, 222 F.3d 664, 669 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 3 . This disposition is not
holding that a verdict must be sustained against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that on appeal a defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence and that the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt footnote and punctuation omitted holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements  beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt