Carol L. Baker, Esq., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Bank of America, Nt & Sa, Defendant-appellee, 15 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1994)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Baker appeals the district court's refusal to give her proffered inference instructions. We assume Baker preserved her objections. Whether reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion, the instructions that were given properly and adequately set out the applicable law. See Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 817 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 (1988); Cancellier v. Federated Dept. Stores, 672 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982); Kelly v. American Standard, Inc., 640 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1981). The instructions that were refused would simply have set out permissible inferences. These inferences can be (and were) argued, Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir. 1990), but the court is not required to include them in its instructions. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.