the Government must present proof of at least circumstantial evidence of the requisite knowledge. See United States v. Ramos, 685 F.3d 120, 130-81 (2d Cir.2012) (collecting cases). In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, we review both direct and circumstantial evidence and permit “the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction even if it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. United States v. Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857-58 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Government produced evidence that
holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt