Sherburne, 249 F.3d at 1126-27 (quoting Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1299). 13 . Id. at 1127 n. 5. 14 . See Lindberg, 220 F.3d at 1125 (stating that the Government is entitled to present evidence with a “spin” and that doing so does not rise to the level required for recovering fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment). 15 . Appellants claim that the Government’s closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct when the Government said that it would lose a lot of money unless the jury returned a verdict against Appellants. Sustaining Appellants’ objection, the district court instructed the jury to ignore the Government's remark. Courts often use curative instructions to remedy the type of improper comment the Government made. See United States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 513 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the record suggests that the
holding harmless an inadmissible comment as prejudicial effect was removed by district courts curative instruction holding that a district court can cure the effect of an improper prosecutorial comment with a jury instruction holding that the district courts swift response instructing the jury to disregard the improper comment prevented  the improper comment from materially affecting the verdict holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice