In what federal conspiracy cases have the jury been instructed to convict a defendant of conspiracy to commit a crime based only on "slight evidence"?

The problem with the instruction addressed in these federal cases is that it permitted the jury to conclude that the defendant was a participant in the conspiracy based only on slight evidence. By contrast, CALJIC No. 2.15 permits conviction of theft-related offenses based upon evidence that the defendant was recently found in possession of stolen property plus additional, slight, corroborating evidence. We have recognized that [p]ossession of recently stolen property is so incriminating that to warrant conviction there need only be, in addition to possession, slight corroboration in the form of statements or conduct of the defendant tending to show his guilt. (People v. McFarland (1962) 58 Cal.2d 748, 754, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 376 P.2d 449.) Defendant's reliance on the federal conspiracy cases is therefore inapt.