Opinion ID: 3044861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Contrary to the Appellants’ assertions, the district court’s supplemental instruction was a correct statement of the law regarding entrapment, which has two separate and distinct elements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to consider entrapment separately as to each count. Moreover, the district court did not err in failing to grant Gustama’s motion for judgment of acquittal as sufficient evidence supports his convictions and neither he nor his codefendants were entrapped as a matter of law. Finally, Isnadin is not entitled to 57 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 58 of 58 relief as this Circuit does not recognize derivative entrapment. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Appellants’ convictions. 58