its findings”). The court did not abuse its discretion in removing this juror. III. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE West argues that the government presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions on both the possession with intent count under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and the firearm possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Given the deferential standard we apply to review of the sufficiency of evidence to support a jury’s verdict, both of West’s claims must fail. The government presented live testimony from two witnesses, Crockett and Scott, identifying West as the ringleader of the drug sale activity at 1204 North 13th Street on the basis of their personal knowledge. A “rational trier of fact” could have found that this evidence established West’s possession with intent to d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We cannot agree that this evidence was
holding sufficient to support conviction under  924c evidence of loaded assault rifle recovered from location near where defendants drug transactions were known to occur holding that evidence is sufficient for  924c conviction where it shows weapons proximity to drugs and its accessibility holding that a city which brought an action for forfeiture of firearms recovered from a drug suspects residence was collaterally estopped from introducing evidence of drug possession thus it could not prove the firearms were used in drug transactions and could not forfeit them holding exigent circumstances found because detailed affidavit alleged drug transactions were conducted near the bathroom for quick disposal of the evidence holding sufficient to support conviction under  924c evidence of loaded firearm recovered from defendants room during execution of search warrant for drugs