II
We begin by considering Delgado’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each conviction:
Where, as here, a defendant has timely moved for a judgment of acquittal, this court reviews challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. Though de novo, this review is nevertheless highly deferential to the verdict. Because of the shortcomings inherent in examining a cold appellate record without the benefit of the dramatic insights gained from watching the trial, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution and to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Nicholson, 961 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
We first address Delgado’s convictions for federal program bribery (Counts Two through Four) before turning to his conspiracy conviction (Count One). We then consider the racketeering convictions (Counts Five through Seven) and the obstruction of justice conviction (Count Eight).
A
On Counts Two through Four, the jury convicted Delgado of federal program bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). Under that section, it is unlawful when any agent of a state government that receives more than $10,000 from any federal program:[1]
corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person,
- ↑ Delgado stipulated that he qualifies as a state agent within the meaning of the statute.
13
