instruction sua sponte is unpersuasive. Hardrick requested — and the district court gave — Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 4.3, which instructs the jury that it has heard evidence of the defendant’s other acts and that it may consider that evidence only for limited purposes. Although Hardrick did not request it, the district court tailored the instruction to list the limited purposes for which the jury could consider the uncharged videos — intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, and absence of accident — and Hardrick did not object. Hardrick has not demonstrated how the district court committed reversible error by giving the appropriate, legally correct model instruction that Hardrick proposed. See United States v. Unruh, 855 F.2d 1363, 1377 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Hardrick did not ask the district court to
recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction holding that the defendant had waived any challenge to the district courts failure to give a limiting instruction addressing rule 404b evidence by failing to request one at trial or raise the issue on appeal