Dwayne Reginald Patterson has appealed his jury convictions for conspiracy to possess stolen microprocessors and five individual counts of possession of stolen microprocessors in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2315. Patterson contends that the Government failed to prove that he knew that the microprocessors were stolen. Contrary to Patterson’s assertion, the evidence does not give “equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence of the crime charged.” United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable juror to find that the Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson participated in the conspiracy to sell stolen microprocessors and had possessed those microprocessors knowing that the microprocessors were stolen. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), ajfd on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

AFFIRMED.