(4th Cir.2003). Failure to give a requested instruction is not reversible error unless the instruction (1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense. See United States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d 382, 388 (4th Cir.1998). Here, the district court provided the jury with an extensive instruction regarding the good faith of the Melinskys as a complete defense to the charge of bank fraud (Count Two of the indictment). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the proposed “puffing” instruction. See United States v. Thaw, 353 F.2d 581, 584-85 (4th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>). We therefore affirm the Melinskys’
holding that failure to give a properly requested chicone instruction cannot be harmless error holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that when substance of requested puffing charge covered in instructions given failure to give puffing instruction not error