it must find Mr. Jimenez guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jury Instructions 13, 14 and 18, for example, instructed the jurors that, to find Mr. Jimenez guilty, they must find that the Government proved each element of the charge, including the element of possession, beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury Instruction 16 provided that the jurors may find the element of possession “if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual or constructive possession.” Jury Instruction 18 also provided that “[mjere presence of the defendant around the firearms or ammunition is not enough to find the defendant guilty of the substantive offense.” Taken as a whole, we have no substantial doubts that the jury was fairly guided by the jury instructions. See Dowlin, 408 F.3d at 666-67 (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we
holding that there was no error at all much less plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt holding no plain error where defendant argued language lowered governments burden of proof but instructions overall adequately directed jury to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal holding that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the constitution holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases