establishing that Hersh regularly engaged in sexual acts with minors during his trips to Honduras; and (3) the testimony of Juan, establishing that “the same sort of sexual activities [described] earlier [took] place” when they returned to Florida from the December 1995 trip. Plainly, Hersh’s “intent” during the December 1995 trip was proven by the recitation of sexual activities with minors that Hersh usually engaged in while in Honduras. His intent was further established by the fact that upon returning from Honduras to Florida, he continued to engage in sexual activities with Juan, a minor. Together, the above evidence plainly shows that Hersh traveled, to Honduras with the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor. See United States v. Kent, 175 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In short, .because the government proved that
holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences holding that the courts role is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party and to eschew credibili ty assessments holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party