Can a defendant rely on Section 2422(b) of the Guam Penal Code to argue that the district court violated his due process rights by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the criminal sexual penetration statute?

On appeal, Lopez for the first time relies on his reading of Section 2422(b) as requiring a specific predicate offense to argue that the district court violated his due process rights by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the Guam criminal sexual penetration statute cited in the indictment. We review forfeited objections to jury instructions for plain error, meaning the defendant must identify an error that was plain, affected his substantial rights, and seriously undermined the integrity or reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).^[14] We conclude that, although the district court should have instructed the jury on the applicable "laws of Guam," Lopez cannot meet his burden of establishing the error affected his substantial rights.