Can a district court compel a jury to take all the time to reach a verdict when the foreman said that the jury was close to a verdict?

Although the foreman stated that the jury was close to a verdict, the district court stated that it was not interested in where the jury stood. The district court then told the jurors that they should feel no time constraints and take all the time necessary to reach a verdict. See United States v. Bonam, 772 F.2d 1449, 1451 (9th Cir.1985) (no coercion where jury not frustrated over inability to reach a verdict, district court unaware of how the jury stood, and district court told jurors to take all the time they felt necessary) (per curiam). Considering the fact that the jury was close to a verdict together with the shortness of the trial, the period of time in which the verdict was rendered after the instruction was not suspiciously short. See id. (verdict rendered one and one-half hours after instruction did not give rise to suspicion of coercion given simplicity of issue presented at trial). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the district court's comments express nothing more than "concern ... for the comfort and well being of the jury, as well as a desire, reasonably expressed, of a busy court to get on with the litigation before it." Roberts v. United States, 239 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.1956). There is no plain error. See Marchini, 797 F.2d at 767.