Opinion ID: 612831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Lack of Jury Venue Instructions

Text: Acosta-Gallardo next argues that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on venue constituted structural error that is per se reversible. [3] We note, however, that when a defendant has not requested a jury instruction on venue or has not objected to the lack of a specific venue instruction at trial, we review only for plain error. Kelly, 535 F.3d at 1238 (citing Byrne, 171 F.3d at 1235). In this case, Acosta-Gallardo does not suggest that he requested a jury instruction on venue, and we review for plain error. Under plain error review, a defendant must show `(1) an error, (2) that is plain, which means clear or obvious under current law, and (3) that affects substantial rights.' Id. at 1238-39 (quoting United States v. Goode, 483 F.3d 676, 681 (10th Cir.2007)). If the defendant satisfies these criteria, we `may exercise discretion to correct the error if [4] it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Id. (same) (alteration in Kelly ). However, Acosta-Gallardo has not argued that there was plain error as to either Count One or Count Eleven and thus has not met his burden to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on venue.