Full opinion text
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. A jury found the defendants — Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty, George Brown, and Diane Griffin — guilty of various drug trafficking and/or conspiracy offenses. The defendants appeal their convictions on a multitude of grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm. I BACKGROUND On February 10, 1988, a federal grand jury returned a twenty-three count superseding indictment against the defendants. The indictment alleged two conspiracies: count one charged Alex Beverly, George Brown, and Betty McNulty with conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count twenty alleged that Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty, and Diane Griffin conspired to defraud the United States by impairing the efforts of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in ascertaining income taxes and forfeitable assets, respectively, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In addition to the conspiracies, the indictment charged Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty, and George Brown with multiple narcotics-related offenses. Mr. Beverly also was charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848. Diane Griffin was charged with only the fraud conspiracy. A. Facts 1. Narcotics transactions a. Alex Beverly, George Brown From at least 1980 to 1986, Alex Beverly controlled a large-scale narcotics operation involving George Brown, Betty McNulty, and others. Mr. Beverly purchased drugs through Peter Suarez, a cocaine supplier and government witness. The two men first met in late 1979. Mr. Beverly was attempting to open an after-hours club in a house on Sangamon Street in Chicago and told Suarez that he needed some cocaine to start the business. Approximately one month later, Suarez met Mr. Beverly at the house on Sangamon. The house was equipped with gambling tables and a bar from which drinks and cocaine were being sold. Suarez met Willie Jordan, who was introduced as Mr. Beverly’s “righthand man,” and George Brown, who was introduced as Mr. Beverly’s “close associate, brother like.” Tr. at 729, 730. On this occasion, Suarez sold Mr. Beverly roughly two ounces of cocaine. Over the next few months, Suarez returned to the Sangamon address several times to deliver another two to three ounces of cocaine. Both Mr. Beverly and Mr. Brown were present for each transaction, as was Jordan. In March 1980, the police raided the San-gamon house and arrested everyone present for gambling, including Suarez, who was there to deliver cocaine. He stopped making deliveries after the raid, but resumed when Mr. Beverly contacted him the next month. In late April of 1980, Suarez went to an apartment on Chicago Avenue and delivered four ounces of cocaine; Mr. Beverly diluted the drug and converted it into rock cocaine. He then gave the cocaine to George Brown and instructed him to take it to a Mayfield Avenue address. Mr. Beverly told Suarez that he had opened a house on Mayfield and was “going to start doing a lot of business out of that house and that he was going to increase the buys of cocaine and the sales.” Tr. at 741-42. Suarez delivered cocaine to Mr. Beverly at the Chicago Avenue apartment several more times, then began making regular deliveries to Mr. Beverly at the house on Mayfield. From 1980 until 1982, Suarez delivered as much as half a kilogram of cocaine to Mr. Beverly as often as once a week. While he was there making deliveries or waiting to be paid, Suarez observed Mr. Brown selling small packages of white powder for $50 and $100. He also observed Mr. Brown convert cocaine from powder to rock form for customers, who then would smoke the drug. Toward the end of 1981, Suarez became interested in establishing drug connections in Colombia. He continued to supply Mr. Beverly with cocaine, but introduced Mr. Beverly to a friend from Florida who would service Mr. Beverly’s drug needs in the interim. Suarez participated in two of these referral drug transactions, one in Florida and one at the Mayfield house in Chicago, in which Mr. Beverly purchased cocaine from Suarez’ friend. In July of 1982, Suarez was arrested in Puerto Rico as he tried to bring Colombian cocaine into the United States. He was convicted and imprisoned until December 4, 1985. Shortly after his release, he contacted Mr. Beverly. They met in Chicago in late March of 1986 at a bar called Mercedes. Further cocaine transactions were discussed but no deals were arranged because Mr. Beverly did not have cash available and Suarez could not sell on credit. In April 1986, Mr. Beverly contacted Suarez and asked to purchase two kilograms of cocaine. Suarez, who was living in Florida, arrived in Chicago on the weekend of April 11, 1986. On April 13, Mr. Beverly, who did not have enough money for both kilograms, purchased half a kilogram of cocaine for $12,000. The men met at Tit’s Bar, a business Mr. Beverly had purchased for his girlfriend, Diane Griffin, then went next door to Blacon’s Liquor Store, a business owned by Mr. Beverly. George Brown arrived at Blacon’s with $10,000 in cash; Mr. Beverly took $2,000 out of the cash register at Tit’s to make up the difference. Upon Mr. Beverly’s direction to take the drugs back to the Mayfield house, Mr. Brown left the liquor store with the cocaine. Mr. Beverly then told Suarez that he would be in touch in the future whenever he needed more cocaine. They agreed that the next deal would take place somewhere between Florida and Chicago so that Suarez, who was on parole, would not have to be away from the Miami area for any great length of time. Toward the end of April 1986, Mr. Beverly again contacted Suarez and indicated that he needed two kilograms of cocaine. The pair agreed to meet in Mobile, Alabama, where, on the first weekend of May 1986, Mr. Beverly paid Suarez $52,000 in cash for two kilograms of cocaine. Suarez travelled to Chicago two weeks later at Mr. Beverly’s request to deliver another two kilograms of cocaine. They met at Somons Lounge, another one of Mr. Beverly’s properties, on May 17. Mr. Beverly telephoned George Brown, who appeared at Somons with $27,000 in cash, enough for one kilogram of cocaine. Suarez took the cash and gave the cocaine to Mr. Beverly, who instructed Mr. Brown to take the drugs back to the Mayfield house. This routine was repeated throughout the summer and fall of 1986. On June 21, Suarez and Mr. Beverly met at Tit’s. Suarez said hello to Diane Griffin, who was working behind the bar, then accompanied Mr. Beverly to the back of Blacon’s Liquor Store. Following a telephone call from Mr. Beverly, Mr. Brown arrived with $27,000 in cash. Mr. Beverly purchased one kilogram of cocaine, which he gave to Mr. Brown with directions to return to the house. On July 20, Mr. Beverly and Suarez waited at Blacon’s until Mr. Brown arrived with, on this occasion, $10,000. Although Suarez charged $27,000 per kilogram, he gave Mr. Beverly a full kilogram of cocaine and said he would get the rest of his money later. On July 30, Suarez went to Somons Lounge to collect the debt. Mr. Beverly stated that he did not have the money but planned to gamble that night; the next morning, Mr. Beverly gave Suarez $10,000 in cash. On both August 9 and 24, Mr. Beverly purchased one kilogram of cocaine with money delivered at Mr. Beverly’s request by George Brown. The first transaction took place at Somons with a purchase price of approximately $28,000; the second took place at Blacon’s with a price of $27,000. On both occasions, Mr. Beverly gave the drugs to Mr. Brown with instructions to return to the house. Mr. Beverly made two drug purchases in October. On October 18, Suarez and Mr. Beverly met at Somons Lounge, then drove to a woman’s house and picked up a bag of cash. They then returned to Somons, where Mr. Brown was waiting with another bag of money. Together, the bags contained approximately $32,000 in cash, for which Mr. Beverly received a kilogram of cocaine. On his next trip to Chicago, Suarez met Mr. Beverly at Blacon’s Liquor Store. The last meeting between Mr. Beverly and Suarez took place in Florida on November 7, 1986. Suarez had completed a sale of one kilogram of cocaine to Mr. Beverly’s associate, Joseph McCorkle, before Mr. Beverly and several friends arrived in Miami for a football game. Suarez had a brief discussion with Mr. Beverly to explain that McCorkle had left Florida with the cocaine. The following weekend, on November 17, 1986, Suarez was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada for possession with intent to distribute three kilograms of cocaine. Evidence regarding these defendants’ narcotics transactions also was provided by Johnny Davis, a paid informant for the DEA. At the time he began working for the DEA, Davis had known Mr. Beverly for more than twelve years. On March 24, 1986, Davis went to the Mercedes bar to arrange the purchase of one ounce of brown heroin. Davis met with Willie Jordan and, in order to get a DEA agent involved, stated that he had a friend interested in buying some heroin. Two days later, Davis returned to Mercedes with undercover DEA agent Herbert Milton. They spoke with Mr. Beverly, who made two calls from a private phone behind the bar, during one of which Davis heard Mr. Beverly ask whether “Johnny is still all right.” Tr. at 242. Mr. Beverly spoke privately to Willie Jordan for a few minutes, after which Jordan handed a package to Davis. Davis observed that the package was a clear plastic bag containing what looked like brown heroin. He passed the bag to Agent Milton and gave Jordan $950. Laboratory tests later revealed that the bag contained 24.93 grams of 2.6% heroin. On April 1, 1986, Davis went to Mercedes and negotiated a purchase of three ounces of heroin. Davis and Agent Milton returned to the bar the next day and paid Jordan $2,700 for a bag containing 75.50 grams of 2.5% heroin. A month later, on May 2, Davis and Agent Milton went back to Mercedes. They informed Mr. Beverly that they were there to buy three ounces of heroin. Agent Milton ultimately purchased 75.95 grams of 3.4% heroin from Jordan for $2,700. Davis returned to Mercedes on June 24 and asked Mr. Beverly to contact Willie Jordan. Mr. Beverly made several phone calls from the private line behind the bar. When Jordan arrived, he had a private conversation with Mr. Beverly and then told Davis that the package he had ordered was ready. The next day, on June 25, Davis and Agent Milton went to the bar together and purchased a bag of heroin from Jordan for $1,800. Laboratory tests showed that the bag contained 51.28 grams of 2.7% heroin. This was the last purchase from Jordan and Mr. Beverly, although both Davis and Agent Milton attempted to arrange more transactions. b. Betty McNulty At the time Johnny Davis began working for the DEA, he had known Ms. McNulty for more than fifteen years. On August 6, 1986, Davis met with Ms. McNulty at the offices of Blacom Corporation, a company controlled by Alex Beverly, and told her that he had a friend interested in buying half an ounce of cocaine at a good price. Ms. McNulty responded that the price would be $900. On August 11, Davis placed several telephone calls to Ms. McNulty that were recorded from the DEA offices. During the first call, Ms. McNulty indicated that she was having trouble getting the cocaine from Willie Jordan but would continue to try. In the second call, Ms. McNulty initially expressed anger with Davis because she believed that he had spoken poorly of her to his wife the night before, and suggested that she might not set up the transaction. After Davis explained that she had misunderstood, Ms. McNulty apparently calmed down and returned to the topic of the cocaine sale. She informed him that Jordan was not home and told him to call back later. She also asked Davis whether he wanted the cocaine “[a]ny special way.” Govt. Ex. T-3b at 5. He said that he wanted it in rock form, but Ms. McNulty advised him that “when you get it like that ya get less.” Id. She explained that she previously had obtained cocaine for a friend in powder form at a better price and a larger quantity than in rock form. Id. On the morning of August 12, Davis placed another recorded telephone call to Ms. McNulty. He then was fitted with a body recorder and proceeded to Ms. McNulty’s home. Davis counted out $900 and gave it to Ms. McNulty, who recounted the money and then handed him a clear plastic bag filled with white powder. Ms. McNulty commented that she had obtained the cocaine from Willie Jordan. Laboratory tests revealed that the bag contained 13.05 grams of 90% pure cocaine. Two weeks later, on August 27, Davis purchased a second bag of cocaine from Ms. McNulty. On this occasion, Davis met Ms. McNulty at the Blacom offices. He counted out the money he had brought and, after Ms. McNulty had recounted it, he received a clear plastic bag containing 27.-70 grams of 89% pure cocaine. Ms. McNulty wrapped up the plastic bag in several magazines, placed the package in a shopping bag, and warned Davis to get off the street quickly. She also demonstrated how he should carry the bag so that no one would think it contained drugs or anything else of value. 2. Other drug-related evidence During the investigation of this case, DEA agents searched an apartment located at 5436 West Division Street in Chicago. The telephone at that address was listed in George Brown’s name. Pursuant to a search warrant, agents seized documents and other items. Several of the documents bore Mr. Brown’s name and the 5436 West Division address, including a gas bill, a real estate tax bill, and a business card for Wesley’s Drive-In. The agents also recovered weapons, money, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia, including: two automatic guns and thirty-one rounds of ammunition; three knives; $1,400 in cash; quantities of white and brown cocaine; a triple beam scale; a steel pot containing a razor blade, glassine envelopes, and cutting powder; a blender, sifter, and spoon, each of which contained heroin with traces of cocaine and quinine. A DEA expert testified that the equipment used for cutting drugs includes blenders and sifters, which are used to break up firmly packed cocaine and mix it with other substances, and razor blades, which are used to divide up quantities of drugs for distribution. In addition, the expert testified that the type of scale recovered from 5436 West Division would be used by a drug dealer rather than a user, and that drug dealers tend to be armed with the type of guns and knives recovered by the government to protect both themselves and their narcotics. 3. Financial considerations a. Blacom Corporation i. Blacom, a construction company, was incorporated by Perry Beverly on January 25, 1985. Perry, who is Alex Beverly’s brother, became Blacom’s sole shareholder, director, president, secretary, and treasurer upon incorporation. He was twenty-six years old at the time and, although he had some experience in construction, he had no prior business experience. Corporate records reveal that 1,000 shares of stock were issued to him at a total value of $1,000. However, Perry never invested any money in Blacom. During Perry’s tenure with the company, Blacom purchased property and opened food and liquor stores. Although Perry was in charge of the whole enterprise, he had no idea how much revenue Blacom received for its various construction jobs or in what form payment was made, nor did he know where the money came from to open the stores or purchase property. He resigned from Bla-com in August of 1985 and transferred the company, together with his shares, to Betty McNulty. Ms. McNulty received an additional 29,000 shares when she took over although, like Perry Beverly, she never made any capital contributions. A Blacom corporate meeting was held in January of 1986. The meeting was attended by Eclorise Scott, William White, Yvonne Elliott, Joe Gibbs, Betty McNulty, Alex Beverly, and Larry Saska, an attorney who represented both Blacom and Mr. Beverly. In that meeting, Mr. Beverly announced that Scott, White, Elliott, and Gibbs would become ten percent shareholders of the company and Ms. McNulty would become a sixty percent shareholder. None of these parties purchased their shares or made other investments. Mr. Beverly also suggested who would become officers of Blacom. Although Mr. Beverly was not a record shareholder or a Blacom officer, all of his suggestions were adopted without discussion. A bookkeeper from Statewide Accounting prepared Blacom’s corporate and sales tax returns for 1985 and 1986. She testified that she realized in early 1986 that Blacom’s expenditures far exceeded its income. By examining receipts from Bla-com’s liquor purchases, it became clear that, because the company had made payments to distributors in cash, there was extra cash on hand that did not go through the bank and was not reflected in corporate accounts. William White, one of the participants in Blacom’s January 1986 meeting, suggested that Statewide mark up the bank deposits to account for any discrepancy. Statewide, which also worked for George Brown, was informed that Mr. Brown owned Wesley’s Drive-In and that all work concerning his account was to be picked up at the Blacom offices. However, the fire insurance for Wesley’s Drive-In was in Alex Beverly’s name. ii. Blacom had extensive holdings by the time Ms. McNulty took over in 1985. In 1984, Mr. Beverly had purchased the real estate located at 5436-38 West Division Street in Chicago. Larry Saska paid the $40,000 balance due at the closing with checks and cash given to him by George Brown. Mr. Beverly instructed Saska to transfer the property to a land trust, the beneficiary of which was Diane Griffin, but later directed Saska to place the property into a trust having Blacom as its beneficiary. Because less than $100 consideration was paid for each of these transfers, they were tax exempt. In September of 1984, Mr. Beverly paid $8,000 in cash for the property at 1811 South Harding, the house in which Betty McNulty later lived. Ms. McNulty was the named grantee in the 1984 deed, although Mr. Beverly directed Saska to transfer the property into Diane Griffin’s trust and then into Blacom’s trust. Mr. Beverly also had the properties located at 1812 South Millard and 1801-07 South Lawndale placed originally in Diane Griffin’s trust and later transferred to Bla-com’s trust. In March of 1985, Mr. Beverly became the beneficiary of a trust that held property on West Ogden Avenue, the location of Blacom’s offices. In July of that year, he transferred this interest to Blacom for no consideration. His beneficial interest in a building which housed one of the Blacom food and liquor stores similarly was transferred to Blacom in July of 1985 for no consideration. Finally, the property housing Somons Lounge was acquired by Bla-com in 1985. Mr. Beverly never held a property interest in this particular land, although he was present during the contract negotiations for its purchase. Mr. Beverly also was involved in several rental properties. In 1984, he negotiated an $800 monthly rental for what became the Mercedes bar. The lease identified Ms. McNulty as lessee and Mr. Beverly as guarantor. Mr. Beverly also negotiated an agreement with the owner of a liquor and grocery store whereby Mr. Beverly would purchase the store’s assets for $25,000 and rent the building for $3,500 per month. The original lease named Blacom as the lessee, but the lease later was changed at Mr. Beverly’s direction to name Betty McNulty as the lessee. In addition to his other connections with these properties, Mr. Beverly arranged for essentially complete renovations of three separate properties, including Somons Lounge. The gutted building that eventually housed Somons had to be reduced to bare brick and started over. Mr. Beverly paid the workers on these projects in cash and also paid for the construction materials. b. Betty McNulty Ms. McNulty and Mr. Beverly lived together from the late 1970s through at least 1985. As described above, Mr. Beverly placed in Ms. McNulty’s name the leases for two rental properties and the deed for the house they shared. Ms. McNulty, accompanied by Mr. Beverly, purchased the property at 1812 South Millard for $5,000 to 6,000 cash. She became the titleholder of a late-model Mercedes Benz purchased and driven by Mr. Beverly. She also received public assistance from at least May 1982 to February 1984. Bank records from 1984-86 reveal that the minimum amount of checks drawn on her personal checking account were: $27,441.92 in 1984; $65,-981.67 in 1985; $57,071.94 during the first eleven months of 1986. During this same three-year period, Ms. McNulty wrote $33,-484.09 in checks payable to Mr. Beverly’s American Express account. All payments on Mr. Beverly’s American Express card were made from Ms. McNulty’s bank account. Betty McNulty’s 1985 federal tax returns revealed that she held Somons and one of the Blacom food and liquor stores as sole proprietorships. In 1986, she reported $22,000 in income from Blacom, although Blacom’s corporate tax return for the fiscal year ending May 1986 showed that no company officers had received any compensation. c. Diane Griffin For at least part of 1986, Ms. Griffin and Mr. Beverly shared an apartment located above Tit’s lounge. The building originally was owned by Burl Price, who sold it to Haley Rainey. In 1980 or 1981, Rainey told Price that he wanted to pay off the debt because he was selling the building to someone else. When Price received a notice of delinquent taxes on the property several months later, he called Alex Beverly, who picked up the notice and said he would take care of it. On August 30, 1983, Ms. Griffin obtained the beneficial interest in a land trust containing both this property and the adjoining building, which houses one of the Blacom food and liquor stores. Ms. Griffin received public assistance from at least 1978 until October of 1984, when her benefits were cancelled because the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) could not locate her. In September of 1983, several weeks after receiving the interest in the land trust discussed above, Ms. Griffin signed an IDPA document indicating that she had no income or resources. Ms. Griffin did not file tax returns in 1981-82 or 1986, although Mr. Beverly told Suarez in March of 1986 that he had purchased Tit’s for her. The government also introduced other evidence concerning Ms. Griffin’s assets. For example, in September 1985, Mr. Beverly purchased a $35,000 Jaguar for Ms. Griffin. The Jaguar, which carried the license plate “Alex, Jr.,” was purchased in Ms. Griffin’s name but paid for by Mr. Beverly, primarily in cash. Bank records reveal that most of the checks drawn on an account they held jointly were for business expenses such as liquor purchases and electric bills. The minimum amount of checks drawn on the account were: $1,975.43 in 1983; $81,354.80 in 1984; $47,460.65 in 1985; $7,847.08 in 1986. d. Alex Beverly According to Perry Beverly, the only “regular” job Alex Beverly held from 1980-86 was a delivery man for some period in 1982 or 1983. Robert Beverly testified that his brother Alex did some construction work in 1985 or 1986. Ronald Smith, who identified Mr. Beverly as “one of [his] best friends,” knew only that Mr. Beverly did some construction work in the early 1980s. Tr. at 1725. However, in addition to the extensive expenditures and financial transactions noted above, Alex Beverly spent money on clothes and other items. For example, in November 1985, he purchased a fur coat for a cash price of $1,395. He bought a second fur jacket in December, monogrammed “Mr. Beverly” in the lining, for a cash price of $3,995. Suarez warned Mr. Beverly to be careful with the way he handled his money, but Mr. Beverly responded that he was “licensed under his women and some of his apartments to do that kind of thing and keep it isolated from the business.” Tr. at 853. Although Mr. Beverly did not file tax returns from 1982-86, the IRS was able to estimate, based on the evidence regarding his drug transactions, that his adjusted gross income in 1986 was $224,500. 4. Suarez letter In approximately September of 1987, after the original indictment had been returned against the defendants, Peter Suarez wrote a letter (the Suarez letter) to the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) who tried this case. On June 2, 1988, the AUSA notified defense counsel of the letter’s existence, but informed counsel that she could not locate it. She recalled that she had given the letter to one of the DEA agents involved in the investigation, but in preparing for trial they were unable to locate either the original letter or a copy. She believed that the letter was approximately three handwritten pages. The AUSA summarized her recollection of the letter as follows: The salutation on the letter was “Dear Andrea”. Suarez went on to say that he believed he could address me by my first name because he felt that we were “working for the same team”. Suarez reiterated his desire to cooperate with the government and added “I want to do everything I can to help you convict Beverly”. Suarez then expressed some concerns about his safety at the institution where he was housed. I do not remember the specifics of those concerns. Suarez closed the letter with a request that he be moved to a different facility. Appellants’ Consolidated Br. at App. 5. At trial, Suarez was unable to add any further detail to the AUSA’s recollections. On June 9, 1988, the day the trial began, Alex Beverly and George Brown moved to bar Suarez’ testimony based on the government’s failure to disclose the letter. They also served a trial subpoena upon the AUSA to appear as a witness on behalf of Mr. Beverly. The government moved to quash. The court denied the motion to bar and granted the government’s motion to quash. The defendants subsequently moved to strike Suarez’ testimony or, in the alternative, for a hearing “to ascertain the nature of the Government’s misconduct in losing this important evidence, and to determine appropriate sanctions.” R.253 at 1. Following oral argument by the defendants and the government, the district court denied the alternative motions. B. The Trial At the trial, which extended over a five week period, the government established the facts set forth above. The government also introduced various charts summarizing information obtained from pen registers attached in 1986. The director of technical operations for the Chicago office of the DEA testified that he had supervised the installation of at least 50 pen registers and had personally installed over 500 such devices. Having been transferred to the Chicago office in 1986, he could not testify from personal knowledge that the pen registers used in this case were connected properly. However, he testified that pen register installation procedures are uniform throughout the United States and that, in his experience, the DEA had never attached a pen register to the wrong telephone number. The records generated in this case revealed that, in the course of a three week period in December 1986, forty-nine calls were placed from the Mercedes bar to Wesley’s Drive-In and seven calls were made from the bar to George Brown’s address. After the trial began, the defendants learned that telephone calls recorded in a separate Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case might involve Mr. Beverly. Mr. Beverly’s attorney requested that he be given a continuance to listen to the tapes. The district court determined that the tapes were not discoverable and denied the request. At trial, Mr. Beverly presented evidence that he had made money gambling. Hurley Teague testified that he built a dice table for Mr. Beverly in early 1986. That table and another dice table were used at Somons Lounge. Teague stated that he helped wire the second table and install a magnetic coil in its false bottom. He also testified that he placed a large magnet in a stool used with the table he had built and observed that when the stool was placed close to the table, the dice would come up as seven’s or eleven’s. Teague stated that he observed Mr. Beverly and others playing dice, once at the table he had constructed and once at the second table. On at least one of those occasions, there was “a lot of money” on the table. Tr. at 2824. Tim Robinson also testified about Mr. Beverly’s gambling background. Robinson stated that he and Mr. Beverly operated a gambling house on Sangamon Street from late 1979 until 1984. As the housemen, they took ten percent of all bets. Most of the gambling took place at the dice tables, although card games also were played. After the police closed down the house, Robinson “wrote” horses and the lottery for Mr. Beverly until 1986. Mr. Beverly received seventy-five cents of every dollar bet and paid the winners; Robinson received the remaining twenty-five cents but did not have any pay-off responsibilities. Robinson testified that his monthly income from the Sangamon business was $15,000-20,000 and that his net income for those 4 to 5 years was well over $100,000 per year. He stated that, from 1984-86, when he wrote bets, he made at least $300,000 per year. Gary Hubbard also testified that he had gambled with Mr. Beverly since 1969. He recalled that Mr. Beverly won approximately $25,000 one night in 1985 and approximately $30,000-35,000 one day in May 1987. Finally, Mr. Beverly called Dr. Chester Layne, Mr. Beverly’s dentist and a former cocaine addict. The government objected to the testimony defense counsel sought to elicit from Dr. Layne. According to the defendant’s offer of proof, Dr. Layne would have testified that Mr. Beverly counseled him on his cocaine addiction and that he sought professional help as a result. Dr. Layne also would have testified that he never saw Mr. Beverly buy or sell cocaine, and that although drugs were sold outside of Somons, Mr. Beverly was not the seller. The district court excluded this testimony on hearsay and relevance grounds. Betty McNulty presented two witnesses to support her entrapment defense. Ms. McNulty’s mother testified that in August 1986, Johnny Davis, the DEA informant, called Ms. McNulty’s home as often as four or five times each day. Yvonne Elliott, Blacom’s bookkeeper, also testified that, in August 1986, Davis frequently telephoned Ms. McNulty at the company’s offices and came by in person to see her several times. Diane Griffin called three women who testified that they were employed by Tit’s lounge and knew Mr. Beverly. They all stated that Mr. Beverly never told them how to do their jobs and that he paid for his drinks like the other customers. The defendants also presented testimony from James Ragan, the DEA agent who interviewed Peter Suarez in Las Vegas on January 7, 1987. Agent Ragan acknowledged that his report from the first interview with Suarez did not mention several points on which Suarez testified at trial. C. Jury Instructions The district court instructed the jury on July 13, 1988. With regard to the continuing criminal enterprise charge against Alex Beverly, the court instructed the jury not to consider Diane Griffin, Johnny Davis, or Agent Milton in determining whether Mr. Beverly acted in concert with five or more people. The court denied Mr. Beverly’s request to include Peter Suarez in the list of persons the jury could not consider. The court also denied Mr. Beverly’s request that the jury be required to return special verdicts identifying the five people found to have participated in the continuing criminal enterprise. During the trial, Ms. Griffin moved for severance, which the district court denied. She claimed that the government’s only theory was her alleged participation in a conspiracy to evade taxes because there was no proof that she knew Mr. Beverly was a drug dealer. The government maintained that such proof was not necessary and that the jury could return a guilty verdict under either the drug or tax arm of the fraud conspiracy. Ms. Griffin subsequently objected to the government’s proposed conspiracy instruction on the ground that it did not differentiate between the drug and tax objectives. She submitted an alternate instruction that would have required the jury to (1) find that she knew that the object of the conspiracy was to impede the IRS in ascertaining Mr. Beverly’s taxes, and (2) identify, via special interrogatories, the objective of which the jury believed she had knowledge. The district court denied both her jury instruction and requested special interrogatories. After deliberating, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all but three counts. D. Sentencing Following a September 23, 1988 sentencing hearing, the district court set forth its factual conclusions and imposed sentence. Based on their respective convictions, Alex Beverly received a 35 year sentence, lifetime special parole, and a $100,000 fine; George Brown was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and lifetime special parole; Betty McNulty received a 3 year sentence followed by 10 years of special parole; Diane Griffin received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 5 years on the condition that she reside and participate in the Salvation Army’s work release program for the first 6 months of probation, obtain and maintain employment, and perform 500 hours of community service. With specific regard to George Brown, the only defendant who challenges his sentence, the court determined that: [b]ased on the evidence in this case, it’s clear to the Court you were second in command. You’ve been involved in this enterprise since at least 1979 and through 1987. You ran at least one of the smoke houses. You were the one that brought the cash and retrieved large quantities of narcotics on a regular and frequent basis. There were numerous firearms found in your apartment. Sentencing Tr. at 49. II ANALYSIS All the defendants challenge several decisions made by the district court. Each defendant also raises additional issues on appeal. We shall analyze the combined claims first, then address each defendant’s separate contentions. A. Consolidated Arguments 1. Peter Suarez’ testimony Alex Beverly and George Brown challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to strike Suarez’ testimony. As we have noted previously, see supra p. 346, a week before trial, the Assistant United States Attorney disclosed to defense counsel that she had received a letter from Suarez that offered to “do everything I can” to assist in the conviction of Mr. Beverly. The letter had been lost and a search had failed to uncover it. Mr. Beverly and Mr. Brown contend that the government failed promptly to disclose the Suarez letter and that the government’s subsequent loss or destruction of that letter deprived them of due process. During the discovery process, the government must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant that, if suppressed, would deprive the accused of a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86-87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); see United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674-75, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3379, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). This duty extends both to exculpatory evidence and to evidence that might be used to impeach the government’s witnesses. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676, 105 S.Ct. at 3380; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 765-66, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). The duty stems from the fact that nondisclosure of such evidence violates due process. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 675, 105 S.Ct. at 3379; Brady, 373 U.S. at 86, 83 S.Ct. at 1196. The government does not dispute its obligation to disclose the existence of the Suarez letter to the defendants. We do not believe that the defendants were denied due process of law by the timing of the disclosure. In United States v. Attain, 671 F.2d 248, 254-55 (7th Cir.1982), where the defendant raised a due process issue similar to the claim in this case, the court noted that the standard to be applied in determining whether the delay in disclosure violates due process is whether the delay prevented defendant from receiving a fair trial. “As long as ultimate disclosure is made before it is too late for the defendant ] to make use of any benefits of the evidence, Due Process is satisfied.” United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 291 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1031, 100 S.Ct. 701, 62 L.Ed.2d 667 (1980). Id. at 255 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Weaver, 882 F.2d 1128, 1141 (7th Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 415, 107 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989). Here, the government notified defense counsel a week before trial of the existence of the Suarez letter and its contents. The defendants have suggested no particular prejudice in the preparation of their defense. Indeed, the record reveals that the defense, in vigorous cross-examination of Suarez, was able to make good use of the impeaching statements admittedly contained in the letter. Finally, because there is no evidence that the government intentionally destroyed the letter or engaged in any misconduct, we shall not disturb the district court’s finding that the government did not act in bad faith. Thus, the fact that the Suarez letter was lost does not alter the resolution of this issue. See United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1341-42 (7th Cir.1988) (lost or destroyed evidence does not violate due process absent “ ‘official animus’ ” or “ ‘conscious effort to suppress exculpatory evidence’ ”) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2533, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)). We also do not believe the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ request for a hearing, which was brought as an alternative to their motion to strike. An evidentiary hearing was required only if the defense had presented specific facts raising a significant doubt about the propriety of the government’s conduct. See United States v. Sophie, 900 F.2d 1064, 1071 (7th Cir.1990) (defendant claimed government acted in bad faith by violating alleged plea agreement; denial of evidentiary hearing upheld); United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1340 (7th Cir.1987) (alleged misconduct for preindictment delay; no error to deny hearing). In this case, the defendants suggested that there had been government misconduct but offered nothing more in support of that claim than the fact that the letter had been in the government’s possession and later could not be found. However, “this alone is insufficient to establish bad faith.” Zambrana, 841 F.2d at 1343. Because the defendants failed to present sufficient evidence of government misconduct, the district court was not required to conduct a hearing on the issue. 2. Jury deliberations a. defendants’ motion for mistrial The jury began deliberating on the morning of July 14, 1988. On the second day of deliberations, the jury wrote three notes to the court. At 11:00 a.m. the jury asked whether a defendant who was acquitted on all remaining counts could be found guilty on count one. Approximately forty-five minutes later, the jury asked how to report a vote that is not unanimous, “[f]or instance a count of eleven guilty [and] 1 not guilty.” R. 302. While the court and counsel discussed the second note, the court security officer stated that the jurors “feel very strongly that by 2:30 they’re going to have a verdict.” Tr. at 3697. The court and all counsel agreed at that point that the Silvern instruction could be reread to the jury. However, it was not read at that time. A few minutes later the court received another note from the marshal stating as follows: “We have a verdict. Also, the jury, on a separate sheet, listed those counts where they were 11-1. This listing is for your eyes. Do you want that list now?” R.302. Yet, another note, the final note, written at 3:15 p.m., stated, “We cannot reach a guilty or not guilty decision on the attached list of counts. Going beyond this point might involve intimidation.” R. 302. Following receipt of the last note, the court, over defense counsel’s objection, reread the Silvern instruction to the jury at approximately 4:15 p.m. The jury continued to deliberate until 5:00 p.m., then resumed deliberations and reached a verdict on Monday, July 18. Based on the jury’s note that “[gjoing beyond this point might involve intimidation,” R.302, the defendants moved for a mistrial. They now challenge the district court’s denial of this motion. They contend that, once the court knew that the jury had reached a verdict on some counts but was split on others, the court was required to take the verdicts and declare the jury partially hung. For the following reasons, we believe the district court was correct in denying defendants’ motion. The district court has broad discretion with regard to declaring mistrials. Our review is limited to whether the denial of a motion for mistrial constituted an abuse of the district court's discretion. See United States v. D’Antonio, 801 F.2d 979, 983 (7th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1222, 1227 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 136, 107 L.Ed.2d 95 (1989). In United States v. Kwiat, 817 F.2d 440 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 924, 108 S.Ct. 284, 98 L.Ed.2d 245 (1987), the trial involved multiple defendants and lasted for nine days. After only seven hours of deliberation, the jury notified the court that it could not reach a verdict on some of the charges and thought further deliberations would be “ ‘fruitless.’ ” Id. at 446. This court determined that, because such circumstances do “not compel a district court to grant a mistrial,” it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to instruct the jury to continue deliberating. Id. Similarly, under “ ‘all the circumstances of [this] case,’ ” D’Antonio, 801 F.2d at 983 (quoting United States v. Allen, 797 F.2d 1395, 1400 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856, 107 S.Ct. 196, 93 L.Ed.2d 128 (1986)), a mistrial was not compelled by the fact that the jury thought it was deadlocked. Here, the jury had deliberated for less than two days — approximately twelve hours — following a trial that had extended over five weeks and involved six defendants and twenty-three counts. The district court “has great discretion to determine how long deliberations should continue.” Kwiat, 817 F.2d at 446. That discretion was not abused in this case. We therefore shall not disturb the court’s refusal to declare a mistrial. b. the Silvern instruction Finally, the defendants assert that the district court erred by rereading the Silvern instruction, particularly in light of the fact that the court knew the jury was split eleven to one on some counts. We rejected this same argument in United States v. Gabriel, 597 F.2d 95 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 858, 100 S.Ct. 120, 62 L.Ed.2d 78 (1979). There, we concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rereading the Silvern charge when the jury indicated that it was deadlocked after less than three hours of deliberation following a six day trial. In Gabriel, as here, the district court knew that the jury was split eleven to one against the defendant. Id. at 100. Similarly, in Kwiat, where the jury thought it was deadlocked after less than three hours of deliberation following a nine day trial, the district court’s decision to reread the Silvern charge was upheld as within that court’s sound discretion. 817 F.2d at 446; see also United States v. Byrski, 854 F.2d 955, 962 n. 11 (7th Cir.1988) (no abuse of discretion where court repeated Silvern charge twice)} Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the Silvern charge. The instruction read here was “perfectly content-neutral and carried no plausible potential for coercing ‘the jury to surrender their honest opinions for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.’ ” D’Antonio, 801 F.2d at 983-84 (quoting United States v. Thibodeaux, 758 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir.1985)). B. Individual Appeals 1. Alex Beverly a. continuing criminal enterprise charge Mr. Beverly first alleges error in the jury instructions. He claims that he did not organize, supervise, or manage Peter Suarez within the meaning of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) statute, 21 U.S.C. § 848. He therefore argues that the jury should have been instructed that Suarez could not be considered for purposes of the CCE count. Mr. Beverly claims only that he did not organize, supervise, or manage Suarez; he does not deny that he occupied such a position with respect to at least five people. Therefore, this court’s decision in United States v. Holguin, 868 F.2d 201, 202-04 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 97, 107 L.Ed.2d 60 (1989), disposes of Mr. Beverly’s claim. Based on our review of the record, we determine that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that he in fact organized, supervised, or managed at least five individuals. “That determination ends our inquiry.” Id. at 204. It is irrelevant whether the evidence was insufficient to establish that Mr. Beverly acted in concert with Suarez. See id. at 203. Mr. Beverly also attacks the district court’s denial of his request that the jury be required, by the use of special interrogatories, to identify specifically the persons it found Mr. Beverly had organized, supervised, or managed. However, it is well settled that the law "does not make the identity of the five important.” United States v. Markowski, 772 F.2d 358, 364 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1018, 106 S.Ct. 1202, 89 L.Ed.2d 316 (1986). Therefore, a CCE conviction will stand where those who were organized, supervised, or managed are unidentified. See id. (“The CCE statute is directed against all enterprises of a certain size; the identity of those involved is irrelevant.”); see also Holguin, 868 F.2d at 203 & n. 5 (government not required to prove the identity of five or more persons organized by defendant); United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 747 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Markowski), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3221, 106 L.Ed.2d 571 (1989). Because the evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Beverly acted in concert with at least five people, we affirm the CCE conviction. b. district court rulings Mr. Beverly challenges three evidentiary rulings made during the trial. Our review of the district court’s rulings is limited to whether the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Nedza, 880 F.2d 896, 903 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 334, 107 L.Ed.2d 323 (1989). Mr. Beverly carries “a heavy burden in challenging the trial court’s evidentiary rulings on appeal because ‘ “a reviewing court gives special deference to the evidentiary rulings of the trial court.” ’ United States v. Shukitis, 877 F.2d 1322, 1327 (7th Cir.1989) (citation omitted).” United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1489-90 (7th Cir.1990). We therefore shall uphold such rulings unless the defendant demonstrates that the district court abused its discretion. Id. at 1490. Mr. Beverly claims first that the district court erroneously barred the testimony of Dr. Chester Layne. Had he been permitted to take the stand, Dr. Layne would have testified that (1) he sought professional help for his cocaine addiction as a result of Mr. Beverly’s counseling, and (2) he never saw Mr. Beverly buy or sell cocaine outside of Somons Lounge. This matter needs little elaboration. As the district court recognized, hearsay problems aside, the evidence simply was not relevant. The testimony would have revealed nothing about Mr. Beverly’s activities at Somons. Moreover, Mr. Beverly undoubtedly could have called any number of additional witnesses to testify that they never had purchased cocaine from him. Such proof of an assertion by a negative is inadmissible. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Layne’s testimony. Mr. Beverly next contends that the government failed to show that the DEA properly connected the pen register used to monitor the phone line at Somons Lounge and that the district court therefore improperly introduced evidence obtained through its use. This claim has no merit. The government laid an ample foundation for the introduction of this evidence through the director of technical operations for the Chicago office of the DEA. Although the director personally did not in-stall the device used in this case, he testified that the installation procedure was standardized throughout the United States and that he had never known the DEA to misconnect a pen register. Moreover, the tape printed out by the device indicated that it was in fact connected to the phone line serving Somons Lounge. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence derived from the pen registers. In his final challenge to the district court's evidentiary determinations, Mr. Beverly claims that Burl Price improperly was allowed to testify to hearsay statements. Price testified that (1) he sold a building to Haley Rainey under a land contract, (2) when Rainey made the final payment in 1980 or 1981, he told Price that he was selling the building to someone else, and (3) when Price received a notice of delinquent taxes on the property, he called Alex Beverly, who picked up the notice and said he would take care of it. Mr. Beverly argues that Price’s second statement constituted impermissible hearsay. Although this testimony encompasses out of court statements between Price and Rainey, the district court determined that those statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We agree and conclude that the government’s use of the testimony — to explain why Price contacted Mr. Beverly about the tax notice — was permissible. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); see also Lee v. McCaughtry, 892 F.2d 1318, 1324 (7th Cir.) (statements introduced “merely to give the context of the defendant’s statements are not hearsay”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 3244, 111 L.Ed.2d 754 (1990). Moreover, the court directed the jury to consider the challenged testimony only as an explanation of Price’s subsequent actions and not for the truth of the contents of his conversation with Rainey. Because there is not an “overwhelming probability” that the jury in this case was unable to follow the court’s limiting instruction, the jury must be presumed to have followed it. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987); Lee, 892 F.2d at 1325. Mr. Beverly also challenges the denial of several motions made after he discovered that telephone calls recorded in a separate investigation might contain his statements. His attorney asked to hear the tapes and requested a continuance to do so. Following an in camera review of the tapes, the district court concluded that they were not discoverable and denied the requests for discovery and for a continuance. Whether to grant such motions rests within the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. Dougherty, 895 F.2d 399, 405 (7th Cir.) (denial of continuance will not be reversed unless district court abused its discretion), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 3249, 111 L.Ed.2d 759 (1990); United States v. Mitchell, 778 F.2d 1271, 1276 (7th Cir.1985) (reversal warranted only if court abused its discretion in denying discovery). Moreover, to prevail, the defendant must show that “actual prejudice resulted from the denial.” United States v. Turk, 870 F.2d 1304, 1307 (7th Cir.1989). The district court listened to the tapes and determined that they were irrelevant to the case and thus were not discoverable. Accordingly, the court ruled that Mr. Beverly was not entitled to a continuance to examine the tapes. We have reviewed transcripts of the tapes and agree with the district court. The tapes do not contain evidence relevant to either the charges against Mr. Beverly in this case or to his theory of defense. Nor were the tapes discoverable on the basis of Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a), which requires the government to disclose only “relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Moreover, our review of the record reveals no prejudice to Mr. Beverly. He claims nevertheless that his decision of whether to testify was impaired by the prospect of cross-examination based on his unknown statements. We disagree; the district court’s ruling clearly was based on the tapes’ lack of relevance. Statements from them were not available for purposes of cross-examination for the same reason the government was not required to produce them. The district court acted within its discretion on this matter. We therefore affirm the denial of Mr. Beverly’s motions. 2. Betty McNulty a. entrapment Ms. McNulty first claims that she was not predisposed to commit a drug crime and thus was entrapped by Johnny Davis into obtaining and selling cocaine. As we recently stated in United States v. Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d 156, 158 (7th Cir.1990): [t]he principles surrounding the defense of entrapment are well-established. A defendant who wishes to assert the entrapment defense must produce not only evidence of the government’s inducement, but also evidence of his own lack of predisposition. Once this has been accomplished, the burden shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact predisposed or that there was not government inducement. See also United States v. Franco, 909 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794, 814 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fusko, 869 F.2d 1048, 1051 (7th Cir.1989). At trial, the government convinced the jury that Ms. McNulty was predisposed to sell cocaine. On appeal, she challenges only the evidence on this issue, which is characterized as the “ ‘principle element’ ” in the entrapment defense. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 886, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (quoting United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 433, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973)). This element focuses on “whether the defendant was an ‘unwary innocent’ or, instead, an ‘unwary criminal’ who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime.” Id. (quoting Russell, 411 U.S. at 436, 93 S.Ct. at 1645). In assessing whether a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime, we examine several relevant factors: (1) the character and reputation of the defendant, including any previous criminal record; (2) whether the suggestion of the criminal activity was originally made by the government; (3) whether the defendant was engaged in criminal activity for profit; (4) whether the defendant expressed reluctance to commit the offense which was overcome only by repeated government inducement or persuasion; and (5) the nature of the inducement or persuasion applied by the government. Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d at 157-58 (quoting United States v. Lazcano, 881 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1989)); see United States v. Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d 866, 871 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831, 106 S.Ct. 99, 88 L.Ed.2d 80 (1985). None of these factors, considered alone, are determinative. Franco, 909 F.2d at 1044-45; Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d at 871. We shall affirm the jury’s verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the requisite predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d at 158. Examining the evidence adduced at trial in light of these factors, we conclude that a rational juror could have found that Ms. McNulty was predisposed to sell cocaine. The evidence of her character and reputation is inconclusive. She had no pri- or record, although she admitted to Davis that she previously had obtained drugs for a friend. See Carrasco, 887 F.2d at 815. She also illustrated her “sophistication and knowledge of the drug business by stating [to the buyer] that the price ... was a good one,” Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d at 872, and demonstrated that she was “not unfamiliar with 'the business’ for which” she was convicted, Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d at 158, by using terms of art and informing Davis that he would get more for his money if he purchased the cocaine in powder form. With regard to the next factor, it is undisputed that the government, through Davis, approached Ms. McNulty with the request to purchase some cocaine. However, “ ‘mere solicitation byv itself by a government agent is not sufficient to establish the entrapment defense.’ ” Id. (quoting Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d at 872). Third, it is unclear from the record whether Ms. McNulty sold cocaine to Davis for profit. In both transactions, Ms. McNulty was very careful to recount the money Davis paid her. The evidence does not reveal that “profit” was ever mentioned, although “we can assume that a person who operates in a chain of cocaine distribution does not do so at a financial loss.” Id. The fourth factor is the most important in the predisposition equation. Id. at 159; United States v. Marren, 890 F.2d 924, 930 (7th Cir.1989); Carrasco, 887 F.2d at 815; Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d at 871. In this case, it is clear that Ms. McNulty did not exhibit reluctance and was not cajoled into supplying Johnny Davis with cocaine. After he initially requested to purchase some cocaine and said he wanted a good price, Ms. McNulty did not turn him down. To the contrary, she directed him to leave his telephone number and indicated that she could give him a price of $900 for half an ounce of cocaine. This conversation took place in person at the Blacom office, prior to the telephone calls Ms. McNulty claims were used to entrap her. When she indicated several days later that she was having trouble obtaining the cocaine from her source, she did not abandon the project, but expressed her willingness to pursue the transaction. Moreover, she was very solicitous in advising Davis to purchase the cocaine in powder form for the best value and in demonstrating how to carry it to minimize its attraction as something of value. Finally, the nature of the government’s inducement was in dispute. The government contends that Ms. McNulty responded willingly and knowledgeably to Davis’ purchase request; the defendant asserts that she obtained and sold the cocaine only after being persuaded by “flagrant coercive tactics.” McNulty’s Br. at 3. Balanced against the evidence described above, which is favorable to the government’s position, is the single occasion on which Ms. McNulty expressed reluctance about the transactions. During the fourth contact with Davis (the second telephone call of August 11, 1986), Ms. McNulty commented that she was not sure she should set up the sale yet. However, the record makes clear that Ms. McNulty made this comment because she was angry with Davis for personal reasons unrelated to the narcotics transaction. We note that “[t]his, like the other factors considered in this five-factor test, was a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. The jury, as was its prerogative, chose to believe the testimony presented by the government.” Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d at 159 (citation omitted); see Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d at 872. Based on our review of the record and in light of the five factors discussed above, we conclude that there was more than enough evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Ms. McNulty was predisposed to obtain and sell cocaine and, as such, was not entrapped. Ms. McNulty also maintains that the district court abused its discretion in responding to the jury’s request for further direction on the entrapment issue. At approximately 2:00 p.m., the jury inquired whether there was any guidance, other than the jury instructions, to help determine whet