With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". de novo the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction. United States v. Schales, 546 F.Sd 965, 974 (9th Cir.2008). We must affirm the conviction “unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2012). We hold that the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Hardrick knowingly received the two child pornography videos even though there was no direct evidence that he had downloaded or watched the files. The circumstantial evidence of Hardrick’s knowledge was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Cordova Barajas, 360 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). First, the government produced evidence that

A: holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence
B: recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt
C: holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent
D: holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction
B.