FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 27, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 46 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 00 88 -SCB -EAJ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JI MM IE LEE FORD, JR., a.k .a. Hoo d, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st27 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: A Mid dl e Dis tri ctof F lo rid a jury con vi ct edJi m m ie Lee Fo rd , Jr. o n t hr eeco un ts of d is tri bu ti ng at l eas t fi ve gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21

U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , andth e d is tri ctco ur t s en te nc edhi m to pri so n fo r 13 0 m on th s
on each co un t, t he sen te nc es to run co nc urren tl y . He no w app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s rai si ng on e is su e: Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d l eg al erro r an d m is le d t he jury as to th e Gov ern m en t’s b ur de n o f pr oo f whe n i t d efi ne d ‘reas on ab le do ub t’ subjec ti ve ly—th atis , when itde sc rib edth e p ro of requi redin te rm s o f wha t a ju ro r wou ldrel y up on in hi s o r he r own affa irs ? The di stric t co urt i ns tru ct edonreas on ab le do ub t i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e Elev en th Cir cu itPat te rnJu ry Ins tru ct io ns , as fo ll ows : [A] real d oubt , bas edony ou r reas on an d c omm on sen se aft er y ou ’ve care fu ll y an d i m pa rti al ly con si de redall th e ev id en ce i n t he cas e. Pro of be y on d areas on ab le do ub t i s p ro of so co nv in ci ng th aty ou wou ldbe wil li ng to rel y

an d a ctonitwit ho uthe si ta ti on in th e m os t im po rta ntof you r own affa irs . If y ou are co nv in cedth atth e Defen da ntha s b een pro ve d g ui lt y be y on d areas on ab le do ub t, s ay so . If y ou are n otco nv in ced , say so.
11 th Cir . Pat te rnJu ry

Ins tru ct io ns 3. We hav e rep eat ed ly app ro ve d o f th is de fin it io n o f rea so nabl e d oubt
. Se e , e.g . , Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha ns en , 26 2 F .3d12 17 , 12 49 -5 0 (a ffi rm in g ju ry

in stru ct io ns th atde fin edreas on ab le do ub t as “pr oo f of
su ch a co nv in ci ng ch arac te r th aty ou wou ldbe wil li ng to rel y or a ctup on it wit ho uthe st it at io n i n ade ci si on in vo lv in g the m os t i m po rta ntof you r affa irs .”); Uni te d Sta te s v. Da ni el

s , 96 8 F .2d45 1, 4 57 -5 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) , op . rea do pt ed on 2re h’

g , 5 F.3 d 4 95 , 49 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (reject in g ade fen da nt ’s arg um en t t ha t t he

“ wil li ng to act ” la ng ua ge inth is Cir cu it ’s reas on ab le do ub t i ns tru ct io n im pe rm is si bl y

lo wers th e g ov ern m en t’s b ur de n o f pr oo f); Uni te d Sta te s v. Cla yt on , 64 3 F .2d10 71 , 10 74 -7 5 (5 th Cir . 19 81 ). Si nc e th is pa ne l i s b ou ndby the se pri orde ci si on s, Uni te d Sta te s v. Ste el e , 14 7 F .3d13 16 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) ( en ba nc ), we are o bl ig edto su st ai n t he ch al le ng edjury in st ru ct io n andaffi rm . AFFIR MED.

3