viewing all facts and making all inferences in favor of the government. United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1568 (11th Cir.1996). Where, as here, the jury has rejected an entrap ment defense and government inducement is not at issue, “our review is limited to deciding whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude [beyond a reasonable doubt] that the defendant was predisposed to take part in the illicit transaction.” Brown, 43 F.3d at 622. Predisposition' is a fact-intensive and subjective inquiry, requiring the jury to consider the defendant’s readiness and willingness to engage in the charged crime absent any contact with the government’s agents. Brown, 43 F.3d at 624; Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548-49, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) (<HOLDING>). We have rejected creating a “fixed list of
holding that because of its civil nature section 881 does not require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal violation occurred holding that once government inducement is shown the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents holding that the state must prove juvenile delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the nature and occasion of prior offenses are facts inherent in the convictions which government is not required to allege in the indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt holding that because of its civil nature section 881 does not require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal violation has occurred