Adrian Ashley appeals from his jury trial conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ashley argues that the district court erred in issuing a jury instruction on deliberate ignorance.

A deliberate ignorance instruction will be upheld so long as sufficient evidence supports its inclusion. United States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 951 (5th Cir. 1990). A two-part test is conducted for reviewing whether the district court’s deliberate ignorance instruction was proper. First, the evidence at trial must raise the inference that the defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of the illegal conduct. Id. Second, the evidence must raise the inference that the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning of the illegal conduct. Id. Where substantial evidence of actual knowledge exists, any error in giving the deliberate ignorance instruction is harmless. United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir. 1999).

The testimony introduced at trial raised the inferences necessary to support the district court’s decision to instruct the jury on deliberate ignorance. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d at 951. In any event, any error was harmless because there was substantial evidence of actual knowledge. See Threadgill, 172 F.3d at 369. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.