Third Circuit disposition — 072993np-pdf

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2993
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
KENNETH WILLIAMS,
a/k/a JUNIOR
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 05-00125)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 2, 2008
Before: AMBRO, WEIS and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: December 17, 2008)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted defendant of possession of crack-cocaine with intent to
distribute. The District Court sentenced him to 120 months incarceration, an eight year
term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. He has appealed, asserting

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that the jury instructions created a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood the
government’s burden to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. Defendant also contends that the District Court abused its discretion in finding
that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Defendant did not object to the jury charge at the trial. Consequently, we
review for plain error. United States v. Flores, 454 F.3d 149, 156 (3d Cir. 2006). In
doing so, we “consider the totality of the instructions and not a particular sentence or
paragraph in isolation.” United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239, 1245 (3d Cir. 1995). After
reviewing the District Court’s charge in its entirety, we find no error in the instructions on
reasonable doubt, let alone plain error. See generally Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5
(1994) (a proper reasonable doubt instruction need not contain any particular words or
phrases provided that the charge, when read as a whole, adequately conveys the
government’s burden of proof). Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s argument that the
District Court erred in charging the jury.
As we observed in Virgin Islands v. Derricks, 810 F.2d 50, 55 (3d Cir.
1987), “[m]otions for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence are not favored.”
They “are to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases.” Id. Our review
demonstrates that this is not such an exceptional case and that the evidence supported the
jury’s verdict. The District Court did not err in denying a new trial.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --