that should be applied to Campbell’s appeal. Although Campbell raises several arguments including charging error by the government, inadequate jury instructions, an unsupported jury verdict, and an unfairly enhanced punishment, we conclude from our review of the record that the essence of Campbell’s appeal lies in his contentions that the jury was improperly instructed and that, as a result, his second firearm conviction was not supported by the jury verdict. In so construing Campbell’s challenge, we conclude that Campbell’s arguments on appeal were not properly preserved below as they were first raised at sentencing, over three months after his trial. See United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 965-66 (5th Cir.2014); United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Allison, 616 F.2d
recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence  and autocentro did not even do that  if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence