Kenishca Walizada appeals his jury conviction for structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (2006). The court sentenced Walizada to two years’ probation. We affirm.

Walizada argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s finding that he had structured or attempted to structure a financial transaction and that the language of the Code of Federal Regulations defining a structured transaction is ambiguous. This Court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the trial evidence “could support any rational determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2010). The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Further, we reject Walizada’s contention that the language in the applicable regulations is ambiguous.

We therefore affirm Walizada’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.