of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see United States v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 1107, 1108 (10th Cir.1997). It is the government’s burden to prove that Mr. Mundy knowingly pos- sessed the controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Generally the “intent to distribute” is established through circumstantial evidence, United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422, 1430 (10th Cir.1992) , and we have repeatedly noted that the intent to distribute “may be inferred from the possession of a large quantity of the substance.” Id.; see United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 708 (10th Cir.1993) ; United States v. Ray, 973 F.2d 840, 842 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1532 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 372 (10th
holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute holding that the evidence did not plausibly support a buyerseller instruction because overwhelming evidence showed that defendants agreed to import drugs with the intent to distribute them and engaged in repeated transactions of large quantities of narcotic drugs for resale holding that the quantity of drugs may not be used to support a departure holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine