The evidence was sufficient with respect to 35 counts of possession of the precursor chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. As to possession, the State introduced evidence that the defendant purchased pseudoephedrine, was seen “cooking meth,” and that others had purchased pseudoephedrine for him. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because the substance was not chemically identified as pseudoephedrine. The court concluded that the holding of State v. Ward regarding the need to identify substances through chemical analysis was limited to identifying controlled substances, and pseudoephedrine is not listed as a controlled substance in the North Carolina General Statutes.