1 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- 3671

_____________ U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

v. S UR AS H R AM P E RS AD, 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- 002) V i s i t i ng D i s tr 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 B e f o re : M c K E E , C h ie f

J u d g e , FU EN TES, and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay19, 2010)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C hi ef J udge. A ppel l antSur as h R amper s ad appe al s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on for j ud gm ent of acqu i tt al
. F or the reasons t hat fol l ow , w e rej ecteach o f his argum ents , a n d we wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I.

W e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es and ther efor e nee d nots etfor th the fa ctual or pr ocedur al hi s t oryi n det ai l
. Fur therm or e, w e br i efl ydi s cus s ed the evi dence under l y i ng R a m p e rsa d ’s c o n v ictio n w h e n w e re jec ted sim ilar a rg u m e n ts m a d e b yh is c o d e f e n d a n t in h is a p p e a l. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ohan P r ovi dence , A ppeal N o. 08- 3670 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( non- pr ece dent i al opi ni on)
. D ur i ng the j oi nttr i al , the di s tr i ctcourtal l ow ed O ffi cer H ow el l t o gi ve hi s l ayopi ni on r egar di ng the numberof m ar i j uana pl ant s s ei zed f

r om t he d e f e n d a n ts ’ p re m is e s , a s w e ll a s te s tim o n ya b o u t w h a t c o n s titu te s a “ p la n t.” J .A . 1 5 2 -5 3 . T he governm ent ’ s expert , for ens i c che m i s tScot tG oodl i n, al s o t es t i fi ed aboutpl ant q u a n tity a n d w h a t c o n s titu te s a “ p la n t” f o r f o re n s ic p u rp o s e s . See J .A . 2 4 3 -4 5 . R amper s ad r ece i ved pr etr i al not i ce of G oodl i n’ s expertt es t i m ony , butnotof O ffi cer H o w e ll’ s la yte s tim o n y . R ampe r s ad now ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng O ff icer H o w ell to testi fyab o u t plan t qu an ti ty . H e a lso c o n tend s tha t O ff icer H o w ell ’s t es t i m onyvi ol at ed Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 16( a) ( 1) ( G ) beca us e he di d not
r ece i ve not i ce. Fi nal l y , l i ke hi s codef endantbefor e hi m , he ar gues thatthe evi dence w as in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e us ual l yr evi ew a di s tr i ct
cou rt ’s evident i aryrul i ng s for abuse of dis cret i on and the u nd erl y i ng l egal conclusi on s deRule 16(a) (1)( G) states that “[a]tthe def endant’ s reque st, the g overnment must give to the 1 de fend ant a

writt e n s umm ary

of any [expert ] te stimony

that [it] .
. . int e nd s to us e. . . d uringits 3 novo . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ser af

i ni , 2 3 3 F . 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 8 n . 1 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). H o w ev er,
w h e re a d e f

e n d a n t h a s f

a iled to p re se rv e a n o b

jec tio n f o r a p p e a l, w e re v iew o n lyf o r p lain
e rr o r. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 3 6 5 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 5 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U n d e r th is
s t andar d of r evi ew , w e ca n corr ectan err oronl yi f i t“af fec t [s ] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 507 U . S. 725, 732 ( 1993) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks
om i t t ed)
. A n err or“af

fec t s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ” i f i t“af fec t [s ] the out come of t he di s tr i ct
courtpr ocee di ngs , ” i d. at734; ot herw i s e, i ti s “harm l es s ” and s houl d “be di s r egar ded, ” F ED . R. C R IM . P . 5 2 (b ). I n r evi ew i ng chal l enges t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , w e r evi ew al l of the evi dence on the r ecor d “i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on t o det erm i ne
w h e th e r a n yra tio n a l trier o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d p ro o f

o f g u ilt [ ] b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtbas ed on the ava i l abl e evi dence
. ” U n itedS ta tes v . B ro d ie , 403 F. 3d 123, 133 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. I n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e c l a i ms p la c e “ 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. G onz al ez , 918 F. 2d 1129, 1 1 3 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). III . A. R am p ersa d d id n o t object t o the a b sen ce o f n o ti ce reg ard ing O ff icer H o w ell ’s test im o n yu n d er R u le 16 (a)(1)(G ), an d h e m u st th ere fo re n o w estab li sh p lai n erro r. 1case -in-chie f at trial.” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 16(a) (1)( G).

The “modern trend,” re cognizi nga “liberalization of Rule 701,” favor s the admission of 2 opinion testim ony

when ba sed on “personal knowledg e and susc eptible to cross-e x amination.” United States v. Paiva , 8 92 F .2 d 1 48 , 1 57 (1 st C ir . 1 98 9) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; Teen-Ed, I nc. v. Kimball Intern, Inc. , 620 F.2d 399, 403- 04 (3d Cir. 1980). Themereability to qualify

as an expert should not dis qualify a witness from providing la y opinion based on her

/his personal knowledg e and perception. See Teen-Ed, 620 F.2d at 403-04. 4 U nderpl ai n err orr evi ew , w e mayaff or d r el i ef onl yi f an e rr oraff ect s s ubs t ant i al
r i ght s . E ven i f w e as s um e ar guendo that the c o u rterred in ad m itti n g O ff icer H o w ell ’s t es t i m ony , w e w oul d have t o concl ude thati tdi d notaff ectR amper s ad’ s s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts. R am p ersa d co n ce d es th at he d id rec eive n o ti ce o f G o o d li n ’s pro p o sed ex p ert t es t i m onythata s eedl i ng cons t i tut es a pl ants o l ong as the s eedl i ng has an i nt actr oot stru c tu re . H e c a n n o t, th e re f o re , d e m o n stra te p re

ju d ice f ro m O f f ice r H o w e ll’s n e a rly i d e n t i c a l t e s t i m o n y. M or eover , O ffi cerH ow el l ’ s l ayopi ni on w as admi s s i bl e underFeder al R ul e of E vi dence 701 bas ed on hi s per cept i on, per s onal know l edge, and expe r i ence . O ffi cer H o w e ll d id n o t, th e re f

o re , h a v e to b e tr e a te d a s a s c ie n tif ic e x p e rt . C om

pa re F ED . R. E V ID . 701 w ith F ED . R. E V ID . 702. G i ven an a dequat e founda t i on, a l ayper s on can of fer 2
a n o p in io n a b o u t w h a t c o n s titu te s a m a ri ju a n a p la n t. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. E ves , 932 F .2 d 8 5 6 , 8 5 9 -6 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtadmi t t ed O ffi cerH ow el l ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng pl antquant i tyas l ayopi ni on bas ed upon thatw i tnes s ’ s every dayknow l edge a nd exper i ence . D oi ng s o w as p ro p e r g iv e n th e e v id e n tiary fo u n d a tio n . T h e re f o re , n o n o tice w a s n e c e ss a ryu n d e r R u le5

1 6 (a)(1)(G ). B. R amper s ad al s o ar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence thathe ai ded and abett ed the thr ee unde r l y i ng cr i m es , and thatC ount s I and I I i nvol ved i n exce s s of one h u n d re d m a riju a n a p lan ts. A lth o u g h w e a re n o t b o u n d b yo u r n o n p re c e d e n tial o p in io n in hi s codef endant ’ s appea l , w e fi nd thatR amper s ad’ s chal l enge t o the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i s no l es s fr i vol ous than hi s codef endant ’ s chal l enge w as , and w e r ej ecti tfort he
s a m e re a s o n s w e s e t f

o rt h th e re . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ohan P r ovi dence , A ppeal N o. 08- 3 6 7 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ) (no n -pre ce d en ti al op inion ). R am p ersa d an d P rov iden ce w ere
r ecor ded brus hi ng exce s s di r tfr om , w at er i ng, and otherw i s e “mes s i ng w i th” mar i j uana pl ant s overel even da y s . H e ca nnotnow di s t ance hi m s el f fr om hi s gar deni ng chor es by
ar gui ng “mer e pr es ence . ” I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng R a m p e rsa d ’s m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l.