the defendant intended to use it fraudulently to receive goods or services.” Wethington, 141 F.3d at 287 n. 2. Because Mousli is not accused of having passed or having attempted to pass these bills, he argues, the only way for the Government to prove his intent to defraud would be to demonstrate a high degree of similitude of the documents. We find Mousli’s contention unconvincing. When a defendant is charged with passing or attempting to pass counterfeit, evidence of that act may easily be probative of the intent to defraud. But mere possession of a counterfeit bill of very poor quality might not give rise to such an inference where the charge is for mere possession, as in this case, and poor quality suggests that it would be unlikely to be accepted in a transaction. See Unite 64) (<HOLDING>). Courts may look to surrounding circumstances
holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury holding that parties intent to create or extend agency relationship may be inferred from their conduct viewed in light of all circumstances surrounding transaction holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana