(2) more than 100 grams but less than 1,000 grams, or (3) 1,000 grams or more. Second, it was clear from the wording of the reasonable doubt instruction that it applied to all of “these things” the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And, third, the drug quantity instruction was in close proximity to the reasonable doubt instruction&emdash;it was the last substantive instruction before the reasonable doubt instruction. Talcing all of these factors together, we cannot conclude that the district court committed plain er ror in failing expressly to instruct that the reasonable doubt instruction applied to the jury’s drug quantity determination. See United States v. Dickerson, 514 F.3d 60, 63 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1690, 170 L.Ed.2d 384 (2008) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. 1 .
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 that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt