Vidales

MEMORANDUM *

Irma Bejines Vidales appeals her convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the facts are known to the parties, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary. We affirm.

Vidales contends that her convictions under § 846 and § 841(a)(1) are not supported by sufficient evidence. Ordinarily, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires that we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bazuaye, 240 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir.2001). Where, as here, the defendant failed to renew the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence, this court reviews her claim of insufficiency of the evidence for plain error. United States v. Tavakkoly, 238 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2001). It makes little difference which standard we use, see United States v. Carpenter, 95 F.3d 773, 775 (9th Cir.1996), since Vidales’s claim fails under either…