cert. denied sub nom., — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1388, 113 L.Ed.2d 445 (1991): The government ... is not required to prove a formal, express agreement with all the terms precisely set out and clearly understood by the conspirators.... It is enough that the government shows that the defendants accepted an invitation to join in a conspiracy whose object was unlawfully restraining trade. See also United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 687 (5th Cir.) ("In order to prove that appellant actually intended to enter into the bidrigging conspiracy, the government was required to show that appellant knowingly joined or participated in the conspiracy.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881, 105 S.Ct. 246, 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Brown, 936 F.2d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. W.F. Brinkley & Sons Constr.
holding that trial court did not err holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element holding that the district court correctly declined to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove as an element of the offense that the defendant did not intend to establish a life with his wife recognizing that trial courts failure to instruct jury on element of offense is harmless when existence of element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence holding that district court did not err in holding that it was unnecessary to instruct the jury that intent to produce anticompetitive effects is an element of the offense of which defendants were convicted