What is the test for a motion for a judgment of acquittal based on entrapment?

Moore appeals his conviction for violations of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1), conspiracy to distribute approximately 483.8 grams of methamphetamine and distribution of approximately 483.8 grams of methamphetamine, and 18 U.S.C. 2, aiding and abetting. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that he was entrapped as a matter of law. The existence of entrapment is a factual issue for the jury. Therefore, in reviewing the denial of a motion for acquittal based on entrapment as a matter of law, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Citro, 842 F.2d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988).

In order to establish the defense of entrapment the appellant must show (1) that he was induced to commit the crime by a Government agent and (2) that he was not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime. United States v. Busby, 780 F.2d 804, 806 (9th Cir.1986).

"Where the Government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, ... the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents." United States v. Skarie, 971 F.2d 317, 320 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Jacobson, 112 S.Ct. 1535 (1992)). Moore contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish predisposition for the criminal acts with which he was charged.