offender under § 16913, that he traveled in interstate and foreign commerce after those offenses and during the time period alleged in the indictment, and that he knowingly did not register as a sex offender in Delaware. Rather, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he “reside[d]” in Delaware and was required to register there. He also argues that he did not have fair notice of a requirement to register in Delaware, which failure he claims violates the Due Process Clause, and that § 16913 exceeds Congress‟s power under the Commerce Clause. A. 2 Sufficiency of the Evidence As we noted above, our review of the District Court‟s construction of SORNA and denial of Pendleton‟s Rule 29 motion is plenary. We apply, however, a highly deferential standard of review to the jury‟s verdict.  We must sustain the verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to uphold the jury‟s decision. We do not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses in making this determination. In making our review we examine the totality of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. We must credit all available inferences in favor of the government. United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163, 170 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks, punctuation, and citations omitted). We will “sustain the verdict unless it is clear that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [W]e will only find the evidence insufficient when the prosecution‟s failure is clear.” 2Pendleton also contends that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting § 2250, but recognizes that we upheld the constitutionality of § 2250 in Shenandoah. He filed a supplemental brief arguing that SORNA violates the Tenth Amendment, but did not raise that issue in his opening brief and it is, therefore, waived