The district court replied that “in a perfect world, you would be right ... [But] I am constrained to say that ... they’re in interstate commerce since they’re foreigners coming here for business.” Vargas timely filed a notice of appeal. II. Standard of Review We review a district court’s finding of guilt after a bench trial to determine whether it is supported by “any substantial evidence.” United States v. Shelton, 325 F.3d 553, 557 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Rosas-Fuentes, 970 F.2d 1379, 1381 (5th Cir. 1992)). Because there was a bench trial, this standard applies regardless of whether there was a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence. See Rosas-Fuentes, 970 F.2d at 1381; Hall v. United States, 286 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1960) (<HOLDING>). “Evidence is sufficient to sustain a
holding that there is no need for a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal in a bench trial because the plea of not guilty asks the court for a judgment of acquittal holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case holding trial court properly overruled defendants motion for judgment of acquittal where corroborating evidence existed holding that trial court erred in denying motion for judgment of acquittal when state failed to prove venue recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal