To demonstrate entrapment as a matter of law, the evidence must clearly have indicated that a government agent originated the criminal design; that the agent implanted in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the offense; and that the defendant then committed the criminal act at the urging of the government agent. United States v. Kummer, 15 F.3d 1455, 1459 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Shaw, 570 F.2d 770, 772 (8th Cir.1978)). The critical question for us to consider is whether the defendant was predisposed to committing the crime independent of the government’s meddling. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 549, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992); see also Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932) (<HOLDING>) When a defendant raises entrapment as a
holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment holding controlling question in entrapment defense is whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that the determination that an alien is an undesirable person is not a conviction of crime nor is the deportation a punishment it is simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want