Walter Lee Hall was found guilty by a jury verdict of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in viоlation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Hall was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment and 8 years’ supervised releаse. Hall appeals his conviction on the grounds that the jury instructions were erroneous. Our jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hall’s conviction.
I.
The jury was given twenty-one instructions on which to base its verdict. Jury Instruction 15, the challenged instruction, charged the jury with the following:
The indictment charges that the defendant was а member of one single conspiracy to commit the crime of conspiraсy to distribute cocaine.
One of the issues you must decide is whether there were reаlly two or more separate conspiracies.
The government must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. If the government fails to prove this as to defendant, then you must find that he was a member of some other conspiracy. Proof that a defendant was a member of some other conspiracy is not enough to convict.
But рroof that a defendant was a member of some other conspiracy would not prevent you from returning a guilty verdict, if the government also proved that he was a mеmber of the conspiracy charged in the indictment.
Clerk’s R. at 12 (emphasis added).
Hall argues that this instruction was errоneous because the word “must” instructed the jury that it was required to find Hall guilty of some conspiracy, even if it was not the conspiracy charged in the indictment and at issue in the trial. Because Hall did not object to this instruction at trial, we review for plain error.
United
*982
States v. Webster,
II.
When a single jury instruction is challenged, that instruction must be reviewed in the contеxt of the entire charge.
United States v. Pinque,
Cоnsidering this challenged instruction in light of the jury instructions as a whole, it is impossible to see how thе jury could have applied the instructions unconstitutionally. First, the contested statement was immediately preceded and followed by statements referring to the “consрiracy charged in the indictment.” The challenged instruction even provided, “Proof thаt a defendant was a member of some other conspiracy is not enough to сonvict.” In addition, other instructions informed the jury that conspiracy to distribute cocaine was the conspiracy charged in the indictment and outlined the elements that the government was required to prove to establish Hall’s guilt of the conspiracy.
Moreover, the district court was correct in describing the inclusion of the word “must” in the challеnged instruction as a “scrivener’s error.” Such mistakes do not constitute plain error where the instructions as a whole adequately explain the applicable charge.
See United States v. Woodard,
These instructions, when considered as a whole, provide that any guilty verdict outside the parameters of the “conspiraсy charged in the indictment” was precluded, despite the “scrivener’s error.” Therefоre, we hold that Hall’s substantial rights were not affected by the jury instructions, and we affirm Hall’s conviction.
III.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm Hall’s conviction.