2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-4-2012

USA v. Nathaniel Thomas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3269

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Nathaniel Thomas" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1644.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1644
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 10-3269

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NATHANIEL THOMAS,

Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the District Court

of the Virgin Islands – Appellate Division

Division of St. Croix

(D.C. No. 1-08-cr-00020-002)

District Judge: Honorable Raymond L. Finch

____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 5, 2011

Before: FISHER, GREENAWAY, JR. and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 4, 2012)

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Nathaniel Thomas (“Thomas”) was convicted of possession of marijuana with 

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), manufacture of marijuana, also in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 
2

19 V.I.C. § 608b. Thomas appeals only his conviction under 19 V.I.C. § 608b. For the 

reasons set forth below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I.

We write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and 

legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our 

analysis.

On May 12, 2008, while investigating reports of a shooting in the Catherine’s Rest 

area of St. Croix, police were drawn to a property located at 6-6 Catherine’s Rest. When 

they arrived, officers observed numerous marijuana plants growing around the residence. 

After obtaining a search warrant, police seized 311 marijuana plants, a bag of “Pro Mix” 

potting soil, and various other items. Thomas subsequently signed a statement, in which 

he described the property at 6-6 Catherine’s Rest as his home and admitted growing and 

tending to thirty to forty marijuana plants.

A jury convicted Thomas and his brother, Amon Thomas, of: (1) knowingly and 

intentionally possessing with intent to distribute, or aiding and abetting the possession 

with intent to distribute, 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) (Count One); (2) knowingly and intentionally 

manufacturing, or aiding and abetting the manufacturing of, 100 or more marijuana 

plants, also in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) (Count Two); 

and (3) maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 19 V.I.C. § 608b (Count 
3

Three). Thomas filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which was denied. He then 

filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 1612 and 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “On appeal from the . . . denial of a 

motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court exercises plenary review and independently 

applies the same standard as the district court.” United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 

133 (3d Cir. 2005). We must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Government” and we will “sustain the verdict if any rational juror could have found the 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Reyeros, 537 F.3d 

270, 277 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

III.

Thomas argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for 

maintaining a drug-involved premises under 19 V.I.C. § 608b. Section 608b makes it 

illegal for “any person [to] knowingly maintain[] or operate[] any premises, place or 

facility used for the manufacture of . . . any substance classified as a narcotic drug in 

Schedule I or II.” 19 V.I.C. § 608b. The section also penalizes “any person who 

knowingly aids, promotes, finances or otherwise participates in the maintenance or 

operation of such premises, place or facility.” Id. To obtain a conviction under 19 V.I.C. 

§ 608b, the Government must prove that: (1) the defendant maintained or operated, or 

aided in the maintenance or operation, of a place, premises or facility; (2) the place, 
4

premises, or facility was used for the manufacture of narcotics; and (3) the defendant 

knew that the place, premises, or facility was used for the manufacture of narcotics. See 

id.

Here, the District Court correctly concluded that the evidence introduced at trial 

was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find all of the required elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Reyeros, 537 F.3d at 277. As to element one, the District Court

took judicial notice of the fact that the property at 6-6 Catherine’s Rest was a “place, 

premises, or facility” under 19 V.I.C. § 608b. The jury was instructed that to “maintain” 

means to “keep in good repair, to keep up, to preserve or protect.” Applying this 

definition, the District Court correctly concluded that the evidence was sufficient to 

establish that Thomas maintained the property at 6-6 Catherine’s Rest. Thomas and his 

brother borrowed a weed whacker and used it to cut the grass around the house. As the 

District Court noted, “cutting the grass, particularly in this tropical climate, is an act of 

preserving and protecting the premises.” Moreover, in his statement to police, Thomas 

referred to 6-6 Catherine’s Rest as his “home” and thus, he had an interest in maintaining 

the property.

The evidence was also sufficient to establish the second element – that the 

property was used for the manufacture of marijuana – beyond a reasonable doubt. Under 

21 U.S.C. § 802(15), “manufacture” is defined as “production, preparation, propagation, 

compounding, or processing of a drug or other substance.” Under 21 U.S.C. § 802(22), 

the term “production” includes the “planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a 
5

controlled substance.” Here, there were roughly 300 marijuana plants growing on the 

premises. Police also found a bag of “Pro Mix,” which is used as a soil additive. This 

evidence is sufficient to establish that the 6-6 Catherine’s Rest property was used for the 

manufacture of marijuana.

Finally, the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Thomas knew that the premises were being used for the manufacture of marijuana. He 

acknowledged that the plants were marijuana and admitted that he watered at least some 

of them. Moreover, as the District Court noted, “[c]ommon sense dictates that occupants 

of a residence would be aware of such large quantities of marijuana growing right outside 

the residence.”

Thomas also argues that the verdict form indicates that the jury adopted a theory 

of the case inconsistent with its guilty verdict on Count Three. We disagree. As to Count 

One, the jury found Thomas guilty of knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent 

to distribute, or aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute, more than 100 

marijuana plants. On the verdict form, when asked to list the number of marijuana plants 

that Thomas possessed with intent to distribute, the jury placed an “x” over the blank “for 

less than 100 marijuana plants.” This indicates that although the jury found that Thomas 

personally possessed less than 100 marijuana plants, he aided and abetted the possession 

with intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants.

On appeal, Thomas seems to suggest that because the jury found that he did not 

personally possess the marijuana plants growing near the house, he could not be 
6

convicted of maintaining a drug-involved premises. This is incorrect. Section 608b does 

not require that the defendant personally possessed the narcotics. Rather, it requires that: 

(1) he helped maintain the premises; (2) the premises were used for manufacturing 

narcotics; and (3) he knew that the premises were being used for that purpose. Here, the 

elements of the statute were satisfied regardless of whether Thomas personally possessed 

the roughly 300 marijuana plants growing in the vicinity of the house.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.