"We review de novo the sufficiency of evidence." United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The relevant question is whether, 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."

Proof that Rodriguez sold drugs to Churchwell-and, more importantly, that he permitted Churchwell to sell those drugs out of the trap house-"rebuts [Churchwell's] argument" that he merely possessed drugs with the intent to distribute at the trap house without joining Third Shift's racketeering conspiracy. See United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining, in a drug trafficking conspiracy case, that "[t]he evidence of frequent, coordinated drug sales rebuts each defendant's argument that he merely 'decided to sell drugs by himself, for his own account, in front of the same areas where some of the people he knew were also selling'"). As in Dixon, a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Churchwell agreed with Rodriguez to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances.

(citing Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 251). That said, a passenger generally does not have standing to contest a search of the interior of the automobile, United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1338 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Lee, 586 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2009)), but does have standing to challenge the search of his belongings that are located inside the vehicle, United States v. Barber, 777 F.3d 1303, 1305 (11th Cir. 2015) (ruling that a passenger in a vehicle has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his belongings, such as a bag)

United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1348 (11th Cir. 2018); United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009). We have affirmed the district court's application of the four-level enhancement where "there was evidence that the defendant had recruited participants, had instructed participants, or had wielded decision-making authority." United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted).

We review for clear error the district court's finding that the defendant played a leadership role in the criminal offense. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1347 (11th Cir. 2018). Clear error review is deferential and "we will not disturb a district court's findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

We review de novo a district court's refusal to give an entrapment instruction. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1346-47 (11th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that even if some of our decisions have "purported to review the question for an abuse of discretion," it is clear that "[t]he correct standard of review is de novo") (quotation marks omitted). A defendant who asserts the affirmative defense of entrapment is entitled to an instruction on it "whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment."

We review de novo a district court's refusal to give an entrapment instruction. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1346 (11th Cir. 2018). The entrapment defense has two elements: "(1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant."

I. BACKGROUND The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, see United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Portela v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 854, 202 L.Ed.2d 618 (2019), established the following: St. John’s County, Florida law enforcement initiated an operation to locate individuals who have a sexual interest in children and who were willing to act on that interest.

But when a defendant fails to raise an objection to the calculation of his sentence before the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1347 (11th Cir. 2018). The government submits that we should review for plain error because Ms. Hepburn declined to reassert or reargue her objection to the drug quantity during the Jones inquiry after the district court's pronouncement of her sentence.

I. BACKGROUND The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, see United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 854, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2019 WL 113506 (2019), established the following: St. John’s County, Florida law enforcement initiated an operation to locate individuals who have a sexual interest in children and who were willing to act on that interest. As part of the operation, FBI Special Agent Abbigail Beccaccio posed as "Mandy," a thirteen-year-old girl, on "Whisper."