MEMORANDUM *

Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He claims the district court abused its discretion in admitting out-of-court statements, denying his motion for severance, and denying his motion for a new trial. He also claims the government presented insufficient evidence to support either conviction. We affirm.

The district court properly admitted Eduardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s out-of-court statements. A co-conspirator’s out-of-court statements are admissible if corroborated by additional evidence establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant was aware of the conspiracy.1 Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s knowledge of the conspiracy was corroborated by physical evidence, the eyewitness testimony of a confidential informant, and his own admissions. Because sufficient additional evidence established Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza was aware of the conspiracy, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Eduardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s statements.

The district court was within its discretion in denying Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s motion for a severance. A trial court must sever a trial only if joinder is “so manifestly prejudicial that it outweighs the dominant concern with judicial economy.” 2 In evaluating the prejudicial effect of joinder, a trial court must consider the following factors, among others: “(1) whether the jury may reasonably be expected to collate and appraise the individual evidence against each defendant; (2) the judge’s diligence in instructing the jury on the limited purposes for which certain evidence may be used; (3) whether the nature of the evidence and the legal concepts involved are within the competence of the ordinary juror; and (4) whether [the defendant can] show, with some particularity, a risk that the joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a rehable judgment about guilt or innocence.” 3 The trial court considered these factors and reasonably concluded severance was unnecessary.

The district court properly denied Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. A district court confronted with a colorable claim of juror misconduct “must undertake an investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances.... So long as the fact-finding process is objective and reasonably explores the issues presented, the state trial judge’s findings based on that investigation are entitled to a presumption of correctness.”4 The district court reason*627ably explored Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s claims of juror misconduct and reasonably concluded that a new trial was not necessary.

The district court properly concluded the government presented sufficient evidence to support Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Sufficient evidence to support a conviction exists when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”5 The physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, admissions against interest, and wiretap recordings were sufficient to support Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza’s convictions.

We AFFIRM, but grant a limited REMAND to allow the district court to determine whether it would have imposed a different sentence if it had viewed the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory.6