Is it reversible error in failing to give a jury instructions naming a key witness as an accomplice and beneficiary of a plea bargain?

Viloria contends that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give requested jury instructions naming the key witness, Naholowaa, as an accomplice and the beneficiary of a plea bargain in exchange for his testimony. While it is reversible error for the court to deny an instruction covering a defense theory that is legally sound and supported by evidence, "[i]t is not error to deny the request if other instructions, when viewed in their entirety, cover that theory." United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1365 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992). We review de novo the question of whether the trial court's instructions "adequately cover that defense theory." United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990).