Opinion ID: 2779689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: defining “attempt”

Text: On appeal, defendant Biscayne Milieu argues that the jury instructions were fatally flawed in their failure to define the word “attempt.” The government and several defendants submitted proposed jury instructions. None of the proposed instructions defined the word “attempt.” Because Biscayne Milieu neither requested an instruction defining “attempt” nor objected to the court’s jury charge, our review is limited to plain error. United States v. Gonzalez, 940 F.2d 1413, 1427 (11th Cir. 1991). “Jury instructions will only be reversed for plain error if, viewing the court’s charge as a whole, it was so clearly erroneous as to result in a 46 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 47 of 85 substantial likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice, or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). As the government argues, this Court has previously held that the failure to define “attempt” does not constitute plain error because, as a commonly used word, “attempt” is unlikely to confuse the jury such that a miscarriage of justice would result. We find no merit in defendant Biscayne Milieu’s challenge to the jury instructions.