United States v. Edwards, 526 F.3d 747, 755-56 (11th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted). To make this determination, we will consider all the evidence presented at trial and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 574 (11th Cir.2011). We have defined “commercial advantage” as “a profit or gain in money obtained through business activity” and “private financial gain” as “an additional profit specifically for a particular person or group.” United States v. Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1086 (11th Cir.2002). No evidence of actual payment or of an agreement for defendant to be paid is needed; evidence that the defendant acted for the purpose of financial gain is sufficient. See United States v. Dominguez, 661 F.3d 1051, 1066 (11th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We have upheld a conviction under §
holding that civil settlements have no bearing on decisions of criminal punishment and imposition of a restitution order is a form of punishment and part of a criminal sentence holding that punishment in this court for an offense under ncgs  1381 north carolinas driving while intoxicated statute cannot exceed a fine of 1000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year the maximum punishment for a misdemeanor under 18 usc section 1 because to allow the greater punishment that could be imposed under state law would conflict with the federal policy of limiting us magistrates nonconsensual jurisdiction to that allowed under the federal definition of a misdemeanor holding that judgeimposed cumulation does not offend the sixth amendment and further noting that where within the statutory range punishment should be assessed and whether to cumulate the sentences imposed is a normative discretionary function that does not turn on discrete findings of fact holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment holding that punishment under  1324a2bii does not turn on the financial success of the smuggling venture