2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-23-2010 

# U SA v . Roh an P rovide nce P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3670

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ro h an P r ovide nc e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1461. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/14611 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 3670

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. RO HA N PRO VI DEN CE, A p p e llan t. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe V i r gi n I s l ands D iv isio n o f

S t. C ro ix ( C r i m . N o. 1- 07- C R - 00051- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. A nne E. T hom ps on Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber4, 2009 Be f o r e : M c KE E , F UE NT E S , a n d NYGAA RD C i r cui tJudges .

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antR ohan Pr ovi dence appea l s the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui tt al and ar gues acqui t t al w as w arr ant ed bec aus e the governm ent fai l ed t o pr ove the el ement s of the off ens es char ged bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . Fort he f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.2 I. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE W e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es and ther efor e nee d nots etfor t h t he fa ctual or pr ocedur al hi s t or yi n ext ens i ve det ai l . I n J ul y2007, the H i gh I nt ens i t yD rug T r aff i cki ng A re a (“ H ID T A ” ) O f

f ice o f S t. C ro ix re c e iv e d a tip th a t m a riju a n a w a s b e in g c u lti v a ted in a n a b a n d o n e d s tru c tu re in a s e c lu d e d a re a s u rr o u n d e d b yo v e rg ro w n v e g e ta tio n . See J oi nt A p p e n d ix , U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ohan P r ovi dence , N o. 08- 3670 at19- 21 ( fi l ed A pr i l 1, 2009) ( “J . A . ”) . O ffi cerC hr i s t opherH ow el l and otherH I D T A agent s i nves t i gat ed, di s cover ed m arij u an a p lants g row ing in cu p s an d tr ay s in the ab an d o n ed stru cture , an d set u p co v ert s u r v e i l l a n c e e q u i p me n tt o r e c o r d a n yi l l i c i ta c t i v i t y . J . A. 2 1 - 3 1 ; 4 0 - 4 2 . T h e r e a f t e r , two in d iv id u a ls w e re re c o rd e d w a ter in g a n d b ru sh in g e x c e ss d irt fr o m th e m a riju a n a p lan ts o v e r a n e lev e n d a yp e rio d . J.A . 4 1 -4 2 , 5 2 -5 3 , 8 0 -8 1 , 1 1 9 -4 6 ; see al so G ov ernm ent’ s E xs. 1 1 B an d 1 1 C (“1 1 B an d 1 1 C ”). T he t as k for ce a l s o s t opped a ve hi cl e thathad bee n parked out s i de the s ecl uded cult i vati on si t e and i den t i fi ed P rovi den ce as the p assenger. H i s co-defend ant, S urash R amper s ad, w as t he dr i ver . J . A . 210- 11, 214- 17, 231- 36. L at erthatday , the off i cerw ho pul l ed overt he ca rw at ched the s ur vei l l ance foot age f r om the cul t i vat i on s i t e and id e n tif ie d P ro v id e n c e a n d R a m p e rs a d a s th e tw o in d iv id u a ls “ m e s s in g w ith s o m e p la n ts ,” w h ic h w e re la te r p ro v e n to b e m a ri ju a n a . See E x s . 1 1 B a n d 1 1 C ; J .A . 8 0 -8 1 , 2 3 9 -4 0 . I n N ovember2007, a j ur yconvi ct ed Pr ovi dence and R amper s ad of “ ai di ng and abett i ng one another ” i n t he: ( 1) pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of one3

hundr ed mar i

j uana pl ant s ( “C ountI ”) ; ( 2) m anufa ctur i ng i n exce s s of one hundr ed m ar i j uana pl ant s ( “C ountI I ”) ; and ( 3) us e of a pr emi s es t o m anufa ctur e mar i j uana (“ C o u n t III” ). J.A . 1 -5 . T h e ju rya f f irm a tiv e lya n sw e re d tw o in ter ro g a to rie s s p e c if ica lly fi ndi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe quant i t yof m ar i j uana i nvol ved i n C ount s I and II w a s in e x c e s s o f

o n e h u n d re d p la n ts . J .A . 1 2 -1 4 . Pr ovi dence s ubs equent l ym oved fora j udgm entof ac qui t t al , ar gui ng thatthe e v id e n c e o n lye sta b lish e d h is “ m e re p re se n c e ,” a n d w a s in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish h is p a rticip a tio n in th e o f

f e n se s. J.A . 2 7 2 -7 3 . H e a lso a rg u e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathi s conducti nvol ved overone hundr ed mar i j uana pl ant s . J . A . 273- 76. T he tr i al courtdeni ed Pr ovi dence ’ s m ot i on and i m pos ed s ent ence . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW Ou rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w de novo a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n f

o r j u d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Star nes , 583 F. 3d 196, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n deci di ng w hether the evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on, w e “r evi ew the r ecor d i n t he l i ght m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p ro se c u tio n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n yra tio n a l trier o f f a c t co u ld have f ound pr oof of gui l t [] bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U n itedS ta tes v . B ro d ie , 403 F. 3d 123, 133 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A cl ai m of in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e p la c e s “ a v e ry h e a v yb u rd e n ” o n a n a p p e lla n t. U ni t ed Stat es v.Th ee le me nts of theun derlyingof

fens e s a rea s f oll ow s. Count I

of theindic tment, 1 possession with intent to di stribute, require s that the g overnment prove: “( 1) knowingor intentional[ ;] (2) possession[;] (3) with intent to distribute[ ;] (4) a controlled substanc e.” United States v. Lacy , 446 F.3d 448, 454 ( 3d Cir. 2006). Count I Iof the indictment, manufacturingone hundre d or more ma rijuana pla

nts, require s that the g overnment prove that Providenc e knowing ly or intentionally

manufa cture d marijuana and knew that marijuana

was a controlled substanc e. See21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)( 1)(B )(vii). Count I IIof the indictment, maintaininga drug -involved premises, require s that the g overnment prove that Providenc e “know ingly . . . use[d] . . . [a] place . . . temporarily . . . for the purpose of

. . . manufa cturing[a] controlled substanc e.” 21 U .S.C. § 856(a)(1) . 4 G onz al ez , 9 1 8 F . 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). I I I . A N A L Y S IS Pr ovi dence ar gues t hatt he governm entdi d notpr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence thathe ai ded and a bett ed the thr ee Count s char ged, and thatthe quant i t yof m ar i j uana pos s es s ed is a n e lem e n t o f

th e o f f e n se s th a t m u st b e , an d w a s n o t, es tab lish e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A. S u ffi cien cy o f the E v ide n ce for A idin g a n d A b etting L iab il it y Pr ovi dence fi r s tchal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence forai di ng and abe t t i ng a ll th re e C o u n ts o f

th e in d ictm e n t. O ne w ho ai ds and abe t s the pos s es s i on, m anufa ctur e, 1 or di stri bu t i on of co ntr oll ed sub st ances i n v i olat i on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a) (1) i s l i able as a p ri n c ip a l. See 18 U . S . C . § 2 . T o est abli sh ai ding and abett i ng , the g ov ernm ent m ust pr ove “the def

endantas s oci at ed hi m s el f w i t h t he cr i m i nal ventur e . . . part i ci pat ed i n i tas so m e th in g h e w ish e d to b rin g a b o u t, an d . . . so u g h t b yh is w o rd s o r a c tio n to m a k e it s ucce ed. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. X

avi er , 2 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v.5

C ar bo , 572 F. 3d 112, 118 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( “the governm ent m us tpr ove the def

endant. . . knew of the comm i s s i on of the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e and a c te d w ith th e in te n t to f a c ilita te it.” ). “M er e know l edge of

t he under l y i ng offe ns e i s nots uffi ci entforconvi ct i on” as an a id e r a n d a b e tte r; ra th e r, “ s p e c if ic in te n t o f

f a c ilita tin g th e c ri m e ” is re q u ir e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 290 F. 3d 539, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T o pr ove the r equi s i t e i nt ent , the governm entcan s how t he def endant“enc our aged orhel ped the perpetr at or . ” X avi er , 2 F. 3d at1288 ( ci t i ng G ov’tof Vir gin I slan ds v. N

ava rro , 5 1 3 F .2 d 1 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 5 ), c e rt. deni ed , 4 2 2 U .S . 1 0 4 5 (1 9 7 5 )) . Si m i l ar l y , “[m]e r e pr es ence atthe s cene of a c r i m e . . . does notal one make one an

‘ ai derorabett er . ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D i

xon , 658 F. 2d 181, 189 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns t ead, “the j ur ym us tbe convi nced be y ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat [the] defe ndant[di d] s om ethi ng t o forw ar d t he cr i m e and . . . w as a part i ci pantr athert han m er el ya know i ng s pect at or . ” I d. Suffi ci encyof the evi dence t o pr ove “pa r t i ci pat i on” for a id in g a n d a b e tti n g re sts u p o n a c a se -sp e c if ic in q u iry . W e h a v e in d ica ted th a t in c e rta in ci r cumst ance s even “ verbal encour agementof an a s s aul t ” orr emai ni ng w i t h a gr oup aft er i t s m em bers di scl ose t heiri ntent i on t o co m m i ta cri m e i s enou gh t o est abli sh p a rt ic ip a tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ar ber , 429 F. 2d 1394, 1397 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1970) ( ci t i ng Kuney v . D ut cher , 2 2 N .W . 8 6 6 , 8 6 7 (M ich . 1 8 8 5 ); P e o p le v . Hill , 233 N . E . 2d 367, 373 (I ll. 1 9 6 8 )) .As the g overnment met its burden of proof as to the commission of Count I , the 2 evidenc e wa s also sufficient for the lesser burdens neede d to establish that Counts I Iand IIIwere committed. 6 T her e w as cl ear l yenough evi dence t o al l ow a r eas onabl e j uryt o fi nd Pr ovi dence g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t o f a id in g a n d a b e ttin g C o u n ts I - II I o f th is in d ic tm e n t. F irst, th e g o v e rn m e n t es tab lish e d th a t th e u n d e rly in g c rim e s— p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e, and manufactur i ng, one hundr ed orm or e mar i j uana pl ant s , and us e of a drugi nvol ved pr emi s es — w er e comm i t t ed byei t herPr ovi dence orhi s co- D efe ndant R amper s ad. T he governm entpr oved the “pos s es s i on” and “ contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ” pr ongs o f p o sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te w h en it s fo ren sic ch em istp rov ided ex p ert te s tim o n yth a t th e p la n ts O f f ic e r H o w e ll r e c o v e re d w e re m a ri ju a n a . See J .A . 1 9 3 . H ow el l ’ s t es t i m onyw as al s o s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h an “i nt entt o di s t r i but e” be caus e of the l ar ge numberof pl ant s he r ecove r ed. J . A . 80- 81. Fi nal l y , the governm entes t abl i s hed “know i ng ori nt ent i onal ” pos s es s i on t hr ough s ur vei l l ance vi deos s how i ng thatPr ovi dence a n d R a m p e rs a d re tu rn e d to th e p la n ts a n d h e lp e d w a te r t h e m . See J . A . 212- 13; 11B and 11C . A s H ow el l t es t i fi ed, t her e “w as no r eal r eas on . . . t o be outther e” otherthan m ar i j uana c ul t i vat i on, beca us e “nothi ng w as ther e. ” J . A . 214. M or eover , the hi dden and a b a n d o n e d lo c a tio n c o n s titu te d e v id e n c e th a t th e c o -D e f e n d a n ts “ a tte m p te d to h id e . . . the contr aband, ” evi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d fi nd cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. See 2 U ni t ed Stat es v. Jenk i ns , 9 0 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T hi s evi dence w as al s o s uffi ci entt o s how thatPr ovi dence ai ded and a bet t ed the comm i s s i on of the under l y i ng cr i m es . T he evi dence di s cus s ed above es t abl i s hes both that7

P rovi den ce had t he requ i si t e i ntentand that he “part i ci pated i n [the un derl y i ng off enses] a s s o m e th in g h e w ish e d to b rin g a b o u t, an d . . . so u g h t b yh is w o rd s o r a c tio n to m a k e it s ucce ed. ” See Xavi er , 2 F. 3d at1288. A gai n, O ffi cerL ynch i dent i fi ed Pr ovi dence and R amper s ad as t he tw o i ndi vi dual s i n the ca rhe pul l ed overon A pr i l 9, 2010, and t es t i fi ed thathe “s aw bot h defe ndant s m es s i ng w i t h s om e pl ant s ” on s ur vei l l ance vi deos 11B and 11C . J . A . 239- 40. I n t hes e vi deos , Pr ovi dence w at er ed the pl ant s , r epot t ed them, and b ru s h e d e x c e s s d ir t f

ro m th e irro o ts . See 1 1 B a n d 1 1 C ; see al so J . A . 70- 71, 82, 84- 90, 139. A nys ugges t i on t hatt hi s evi dence w as nots uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe convi ct i on th e r e f o r e b o r d e r s o n f

r i v o l i t y. B . S u ff

i ci en cy of t h e E viden ce as to A m ou n t of D ru gs i n C ou n ts I an d II Pr ovi dence ’ s at t empt t o ar gue thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef be caus e quant i t yi s an el ementof the off

ens e thatw as n’ tpr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubti s equal l yw i t hout m eri t . A l tho ug h the qua nti t yof a c on t rol l ed sub st ance c an incr ease pen al t i es and m ust th e re f o re b e e s ta b lis h e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Lacy , 446 F. 3d 4 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), P rov iden ce ’s claim fo r reli ef ign o res the fa ct th at th e jury i nt err ogat or i es es t abl i s hed thatt he j uryw as convi nced of the drug quant i t ybey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Fur t herm or e, t he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng w as cl ear l ys uppor t ed bythe evi dence . A gent H ow el l t es t i fi ed thathe r ecove r ed overtw o hundr ed mar i j uana pl ant s fr om the cul t i vat i on s i t e. J . A . 79. H e t es t i fi ed thatt o be count ed as an off i ci al pl ant , the mar i

j uana musthave8

a n in ta c t r o o t s tru c tu re , s te m , a n d le a f. See J.A . 1 0 6 . S c o tt G o o d lin , a f o re n sic c h e m ist, e c h o e d A g e n t H o w e ll’s te stim o n ya s to th e e lem e n ts re q u ire d to c o u n t a p lan t f o r f o re n sic purpos es . J . A . 197. H e s t at ed thathi s l ab r ece i ved pac kages on J ul y26, 2007 cont ai ni ng the pl ant s A gentH ow el l s ei zed, butthathe di d notopen orcountthem unt i l A ugus t6, 2 0 0 7 , b e c a u se o f

a “ b a c k lo g .” J .A . 1 9 3 -9 4 . U p o n a n a ly z in g th e m , G o o d lin c o u n ted o n ly s i xty - fourm ar i

j uana pl ant s , and the r es tw er e mer el yfr agment s w i t h s om e s t ems or l eave s , butno i nt actr oots t ructur e. J . A . 197. G oodl i n expl ai ned, how ever , thatthe num berof count abl e pl ant s l i kel ydecr eas ed s i gni fi cant l ydur i ng the tw o w eeks betw een r ece i ptand ana l y s i s , beca us e i tw as notuncomm on forpl ant s depr i ved of w at erand nu tri ents t o d ryou tand break i nto fr agm ents

— l osi ng el em ents requi red t o b e cou nted as a pl antforfor ens i c purpos es . J . A . 201- 03. Vi e wi n g t h i s e v i d e n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi t h th e o t h e rt e s t i mo n y , p h o t o s , a n d DVD s ur vei l l ance of the cul t i vat i on s i t e, a r eas onabl e j urycoul d have f ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatPr ovi dence pos s es s ed w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, and manufactur ed, o n e h u n d red o r m o re m arij u an a p lants in v iolati o n o f § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(B )(vii ). V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng P ro v id e n c e ’s m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l.