When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a federal criminal conviction, must the court consider: Government evidence that exculpates or exonerates the accused, the rationality or reasonableness of the chain-of-inferences required for conviction, or the effect that the prosecutor's misstatements about the law or evidence have on the jury's verdict (which verdict, in turn, receives a high level of deference in sufficiency review)?

If a court does none of those things, then does its sufficiency test amount to no more than the "no evidence" test of Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960), which this Court overruled in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320 (1979)?

Whether courts reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in federal criminal convictions must consider exculpatory evidence, the rationality of the chain of inferences required for conviction, and the effect of prosecutorial misstatements on the jury's verdict, or whether the current standard amounts to the 'no evidence' test overruled in Jackson v. Virginia