Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioner's instructional error claim, which did not examine evidence Petitioner proffered regarding his lack of intent to cheat the purported victims, conflict with United States v. Neder, 527 US. 1, 19 (1999), which requires such a searching inquiry whenever 'the defendant contested' the instruction given 'and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding'?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999), the Court held that a jury instructional error is not harmless if the government cannot demonstrate “‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). Here, after acknowledging that the government had conceded the district court’s jury charge regarding “intent to defraud,” a required element under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, was incorrect, the Ninth Circuit concluded nevertheless — without considering specifically evidence that Petitioner presented that negated his specific intent — that error was indeed harmless. The question presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of Petitioner’s instructional error claim, which did not examine evidence Petitioner proffered regarding his lack of intent to cheat the purported victims, conflict with United States v. Neder, 527 US. 1, 19 (1999), which requires such a searching inquiry whenever “the defendant contested” the instruction given “and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding”? -prefix