How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "willing to act" in the context of reasonable doubt?

In United States v. Robinson, 546 F.2d 309 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 918 (1977), we held that this instruction, taken with the other instructions, accurately conveyed the meaning of reasonable doubt. Id. at 314. In United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez, 950 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir.1991), we reaffirmed this holding, stating that taken in context of the instruction as a whole, the willingness to act language "did not detract from the heavy burden suggested by the use of the term reasonable doubt standing alone." Id. at 1386. Given this precedent, we conclude that the reasonable doubt instruction given by the district court in this case was not an erroneous statement of the law.