(quoting United States v. Kinder, 335 F.3d 1132, 1141 (10th Cir.2003)). This would include an objection on venue grounds. See United States v. Price, 447 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1971) (finding if defendant “specifies grounds for acquittal but is silent as to venue” at conclusion of government’s case, defendant waives venue). On the other hand, if a defendant files a general motion for acquittal that does not identify a specific point of attack, the defendant is deemed to be challenging the sufficiency of each essential element of the government’s case, including venue. See United States v. Gross, 276 F.2d 816, 818-19 (2d Cir.1960) (noting a motion for acquittal made at conclusion of evidence properly challenges the proof on venue); United States v. Browne, 225 F.2d 751, 755 (7th Cir.1955) (<HOLDING>); 2 Wright, supra, § 306, at 345-46 (“A general
holding with respect to a general motion for directed verdict that it raised the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence on venue an essential part of the governments case internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where it had no substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury verdict judged in relation to the total evidence on the issue in question internal quotation marks omitted holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted holding that we must affirm the jurys verdict against a sufficiency challenge if there is substantial evidence taking the view most favorable to the government to support it internal quotation marks omitted