Joaquin Moneada was convicted by a jury for possession and importation with intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, & 960. Moneada argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew the marijuana was in the vehicle that he was attempting to drive across the border.

Because Moneada filed a motion for acquittal pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 29(c), at the close of the Government’s case and at the close of all the evidence, the standard of review for Moncada’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). All credibility determinations and reasonable inferences are to be resolved in favor of the verdict. United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1995). This court does not re-weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996).

The testimony that was introduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find Moneada guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.