that purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. IT IS SO ORDERED. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 . We summarize the pertinent evidence offered at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Carter, 511 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir.2008) (“In reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government....”). 2 . The evidence admitted at trial is summarized in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 3 . At oral argument, when clarifying which
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 the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party holding record is viewed in light most favorable to verdict holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims 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 when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government