no evidence that multiple conspiracies existed. In any event, the jury was also instructed that it could only convict based upon the conspiracy charged in the indictment. In addition, any error in failing to give a multiple conspiracy instruction was harmless, as there was sufficient evidence to prove a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment. See United States v. Shabani, 48 F.3d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that failure to give a multiple conspiracy instruction is treated as an issue of whether there was sufficient evidence that only a single conspiracy existed). 6. Defendants’ challenges to the district court’s supplemental instructions are denied under the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Anderson, 94 Fed.Appx. 487 (9th Cir.2004) (unpublished disposition) (<HOLDING>). Although Anderson addressed the supplemental
holding that the staceys codefendants were not prejudiced by the district courts supplemental instruction to the jury that it may consider only overt acts committed within the statute of limitations recognizing that a party that objects to a jury instruction before the jury retires may challenge the instruction on appeal holding that district courts failure to give an addict instruction was not reversible error because the instructions to the jury on accomplice immune informant and felon testimony along with the general credibility instruction were sufficient to alert the jury to consider with special care and weigh with caution the testimony of the witness holding that in reviewing a jury instruction this court must review the entire instruction and look at all the evidence on the record to determine whether there was error and whether that error prejudiced the complaining party holding that a jury is presumed to heed the district courts instruction to disregard the fact that the defendants were held in contempt and admonished before the jury