Defendant-Appellant Ariel Jimenez was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to tax-return claims, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. On appeal, Jimenez argues that (1) the district court’s jury instruction regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy was erroneous, and (2) the evidence supporting his conspiracy convictions was insufficient. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the judgment of conviction.

2  No. 22-2090 BACKGROUND Defendant-Appellant Ariel Jimenez owned and operated a tax preparation business in the Bronx, which assisted individuals with filing tax returns. The evidence at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government (as we must do on this appeal), revealed that between 2009 and 2015, Jimenez spearheaded a large-scale tax fraud and identity theft scheme. Jimenez and his employees purchased stolen identities of children and sold them to clients, who claimed the children as false dependents on their tax returns to receive valuable tax benefits. Through this scheme, Jimenez obtained millions of dollars, some of which he laundered by structuring bank deposits, investing in real estate properties, and then transferring the properties to his parents and limited liability companies.

On September 9, 2021, the government filed a superseding indictment charging Jimenez with conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining the payment of a false claim, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286 (Count One); conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count Two); aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)&(b) and (2) (Count Three); and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(B)(i) and (2) (Count Four). For purposes of the statute of limitations, Counts One through Three related back to the original indictment, which was filed on December 12, 2018.

At trial for the charges contained in the superseding indictment, the government presented testimonial evidence from two cooperating witnesses who participated in the conspiracy: Ireline Nunez, Jimenez’s ex-wife and former manager of his tax business, and Elvy Jimenez, an employee who worked for Jimenez between 3  No. 22-2090 2009 and 2013 before leaving to start a competing tax preparation business, which also engaged in tax fraud and identity theft. 1 Clients who paid for false dependents also testified at trial, as did several victims of the identity theft. The government offered various documentary evidence that corroborated the testimony, including lists of stolen identities used by Jimenez and his employees, fraudulent tax returns they filed, inculpatory letters written by Jimenez, and records showing how Jimenez spent and laundered proceeds.

At the conclusion of the government’s case, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the applicable five-year statute of limitations required acquittal because Jimenez withdrew from the conspiracy more than five years before the original indictment was filed. The district court denied the Rule 29 motion subject to renewal after the jury’s verdict. The defense did not call any witnesses. In its closing statement to the jury, the defense again argued, among other things, that Jimenez withdrew from the conspiracy before the statute of limitations began to run.

In advance of the charge conference, Jimenez requested that the district court instruct the jury on the defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy, and the parties then litigated the language of the instruction. The government requested an instruction tha