the elements necessary to assert a return of capital theory. However, in evaluating an offer of proof on appeal, we are not confined to the four corners of the formal offer, but may evaluate “evidence ... made known to the court.” Movie 1 & 2 v. United Artists Commc’ns, Inc., 909 F.2d 1245, 1249 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, in evaluating whether the defendant was entitled to present a return of capital theory, we examine not only the formal offer of proof, but the record as a whole to see if “there is evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense.” Kayser, 488 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Jackson, 726 F.2d at 1468). However, we will not consider any new offers on appeal, as Boulware seems to suggest we should. See United States v. Lara-Hernandez, 588 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). “The offer of proof required by Rule
holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding it was too late to present an additional theory of relevance of evidence after the verdict holding verdict inadequate when stipulated medical expenses were 319499 and verdict was in same amount notwithstanding evidence of additional uncontested damages holding that the societal costs of retrial after a jury verdict of guilty are far too substantial to justify setting aside the verdict simply because of an error in the earlier grand jury proceedings holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement