that the government presented insufficient evidence to prove that (1) he was part of the conspiracy and (2) that he conspired to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. To evaluate a sufficiency claim like Bantam’s, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all inferences in the government’s favor. United States v. Conrad, 507 F.3d 424, 432 (6th Cir.2007); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Then we ask whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ba th Cir.2008) (stating that evidence of repeat purchases supports the inference that a defendant is a co-conspirator, not merely a buyer or seller); United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 334 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bourjaily, 781 F.2d 539, 545
holding that the defendants involvement in repeat drug transactions with coconspirators supported the inference that he was a coconspirator holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding that the statute of limitations did not commence  despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician  until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud holding that evidence that defendants had participated in several prior drug transactions was properly admitted to establish defendants intent to distribute narcotics holding evidence sufficient that appellant should have anticipated murder when he knew coconspirator had a gun and appellant stated he first saw the gun on the night of the offense when coconspirator showed it to victim