to become legal residents?” He then orally modified the proposed instruction: “Does anyone think it is appropriate for illegal immigrants to be given amnesty?” and “[Does anyone tjhink it is inappropriate?” The district court instead asked: “Do any of you feel so strongly about [the] issue [of amnesty] that if I give you your instructions on the law as to when amnesty is and when amnesty is not appropriate, you would not be able to follow my instructions?” The record reflects that no defendant objected to the amnesty question posed by the district court, nor did any of the defendants request any further voir dire by the court. Thus, our review is for plain error, and, under the circumstances in this case, we find none. See United States v. Corey, 625 F.2d 704, 708 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). 3. Limitation on Gerald’s Direct Examination
holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err when it declined to use defendants proposed questions and adequately covered the essence of the proposed questions through its own examination holding no abuse of discretion when district court declined to hear oral testimony holding that district court did not err in giving an instruction identical to that proposed by jenkins holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal