premises. He also testified that the phot L.Ed.2d 443 (1982). Accordingly, we conclude that the submission of the photographs to the jury during its deliberation on count V, if error at all, was at most harmless. 4. Failure to Give a Limiting Instruction as to the Photographs Finally, Lucero argues the superior court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction when it allowed the jury to view the photographs during its deliberation on count V. But Lucero did not request such an instruction. Thus, “any error from failure to give the instruction is waived.” Brocklesby v. United States, 767 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1101, 106 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed.2d 918 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 51; cf. United States v. Multi-Management, Inc., 743 F.2d 1359, 1364 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . If Guam law is unclear, we have
holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error holding that trial courts error in failing to sua sponte give instruction was harmless because state did not emphasize this evidence in closing argument and evidence of appellants guilt was otherwise overwhelming holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error holding that when defendant argued on appeal that the trial justice should have given the jury a sua sponte limiting instruction regarding alleged rule 404b evidence defendants failure to object at trial constituted a waiver of that issue