and in response to the jurors’ question specifically asking if they could consider the local dealer. The district court submitted Eighth Circuit model jury instruction 9.01 on entrapment, replacing the clauses “(describe law enforcement officer or agents by name and capacity)” and “(officer or agent)” with the name of the cooperating California source because Kurkowski worked directly with that source, and the source was working with the police. The district court properly excluded the local dealer from consideration because the local dealer did not act on behalf, or at the request, of the police. United States v. Hawk, 276 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.2002) (jury instructions not challenged at trial are reviewed for plain error); United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 573 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 971, 121 S.Ct. 1601,
holding no derivative entrapment where middleman was induced by a government agent to commit crime responding to pressure takes it upon himself to induce another to participate in crime holding an inducement to commit a crime by a private party who has no government involvement does not establish an entrapment defense holding that inducement occurring before the informant was directed or supervised by the government could not support an entrapment defense recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment