United States v. Young Gray

MEMORANDUM **

lone Young Gray appeals pro se the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate the sentence imposed after a jury trial conviction for making false statements on loan applications. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), we affirm.

Gray contends that she was denied due process when the court misstated the rea *963 sonable doubt standard during one jury instruction. 1 Since Gray did not object to the jury instruction at trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Jimenez, 258 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir.2001).

Considering the jury instructions as a whole, we conclude that the court’s one misstatement did not constitute plain error since (1) the court “repeatedly and exhaustively reminded the jury of the correct legal standard”; (2) the court provided the jury with proper written instructions; and (3) defense counsel correctly discussed the reasonable doubt standard during closing argument. See United States v. Ancheta, 38 F.3d 1114, 1116-17 (9th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Marin-Cuevas, 147 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that…