Is reasonable doubt instruction defective in a sexual assault case?

The plaintiff argues that the district court's jury instruction was defective for, one, failing to advise the jury that reasonable doubt could be based on lack of evidence, two, negating the presumption of innocence, and, three, defining reasonable doubt as a doubt based on reason and common sense. Because trial counsel did not object to the reasonable doubt instruction at trial, this court can reverse a conviction based on the instruction only if it is in plain error. United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1986). Reversal for plain error is an exceptional remedy used only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process. Id.