assume a sufficient opportunity was not provided, any error was harmless, see United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1986), because the district court answered the question properly by redirecting the jury to the evidence and the jury instructions. See Walker, 575 F.2d at 214. 4. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not coerce the jury into continuing deliberations after it was allegedly deadlocked. See Jimines v. Myers, 40 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 1993). When the jury indicated that it currently did not have unanimous agreement on the verdict, the district court properly asked if it could provide any additional assistive instructions on the law. See Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946) (<HOLDING>). The district court also properly sent the
holding that it is not the duty of a court to decide purely academic or abstract questions recognizing a judges duty to address the jurys questions recognizing implied duty to market holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction