States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465 (3rd Cir.1999); and United States v. Paredes, 950 F.Supp. 584 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Alternatively, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the images stored on his computer’s hard drive were downloaded from the internet. See United States v. Henriques, 234 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Wilson, 182 F.3d 737 (10th Cir.1999). When assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the record de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and asking whether a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campos, 221 F.3d 1143, 1151 (10th Cir.2000). The L.Ed.2d 149 (2002); United States v. Schaffner, 258 F.3d 675, 679-83 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Kammersell, 196
holding that evidence of transport of child pornography across states lines establishes a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography holding that distribution of child pornography to encourage a meeting to engage in sex was sufficient to warrant enhancement holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding admission of videos containing child pornography was probative of intent to sexually assault a child