to the jury that an enterprise “must have a structure for making decisions.” It then instructed the jury that”[t]he structure must provide a mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the entity on an ongoing continuous basis, rather than an ad hoc basis.” (emphasis added). The district court did not further define the term “ad hoc.” “In reviewing jury instructions, the relevant inquiry is whether the instructions as a whole are misleading or inadequate to guide the jury’s deliberation.” Shryock, 342 F.3d at 986 (citation omitted). Appellants do not claim that the instruction as a whole is misleading or inadequate, a wise course since the language of the instruction is virtually identical to that set forth by this court in Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1299 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Appellants are therefore left to argue that
holding that an enterprise under rico need not have a businesslike structure and can have a rather informal organization holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis holding that in order to plead adequate rico complaint plaintiff must allege that defendant had some part in the direction of the alleged enterprises affairs holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc  basis