What is the standard of review for a district court's denial of a requested jury instruction?

We have not resolved the proper standard of review for a district court's denial of a requested jury instruction. In some cases, we have applied an abuse of discretion standard; in others, we have reviewed de novo. United States v. Sneezer, 983 F.2d 920, 923 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 113 (1993); United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 959 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1306 (1993). Even under the less deferential de novo standard, the record evidence compels affirmance.

A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included defense instruction only if: (1) the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the charged offense, and (2) a jury rationally could convict him of the lesser offense while acquitting him of the greater. Sitton, 968 F.2d at 959. In determining whether a lesser offense is a subset of a charged offense, we compare the elements of each crime "without regard to the 'inferences that may be drawn from evidence introduced at trial.' " Sneezer, 983 F.2d at 923 (quoting Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 720 (1989)).