‘We may not ‘weigh the evidence presented, consider the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.’ ” United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. M/G Transp. Servs., Inc., 173 F.3d 584, 588-89 (6th Cir.1999)). The government presented overwhelming evidence that Edington attempted to entice a minor in violation of Section 2422(b). The jury heard Johnson’s testimony and saw emails and instant messages between Edington and “Jake” and video clips of Johnson’s interview with Edington in which Edington essentially confessed to the crime. The government was not required to present evidence that an actual minor was involved in order for Edington to be convicted under Section 2422(b). See Hackworth, 483 Fed.Appx. at 976-78 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hughes, 632 F.3d 956, 962
holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement holding that a  15 lien did not apply because that section does not require reimbursement for an injury not compensable under c 152 holding that section 636b1c does not require any review at all by the district court of an issue that is not objected to holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries holding that a conviction under section 2422b does not require the involvement of a minor