## Facts

- A National Forest Service officer conducting aerial surveillance observed three marijuana patches growing on National Forest land in Oklahoma.
- A ground check found the patches close together and accessible by a spur road and footpaths; plants were in man-made mounds with surrounding vegetation cut away to expose them to sunlight.
- The area was remote, away from recreation sites, and had little traffic.
- Officers installed a motion-activated video camera aimed at one patch and monitored the site over several months.
- Video footage showed Thomas Nathaniel Wood and David Leslie Wood at the patches on multiple dates, appearing to groom and tend the plants.
- Over time, officers observed signs consistent with cultivation, including watering and fertilizing, as plants became greener than surrounding vegetation.
- Officers eventually seized the remaining plants and collected samples.
- Searches of the defendants’ residence and a vehicle revealed items consistent with drug activity, including marijuana seeds, scales, plastic baggies, paraphernalia, marijuana plants, and processed marijuana.
- The defendants testified they discovered the patches while walking in the woods and admitted taking leaves and seeds for personal use, but denied cultivating, watering, fertilizing, or distributing marijuana.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, maintaining a place for drug activity, and conspiracy.
2. Whether charging and sentencing the defendants for manufacturing, possession with intent to distribute, maintaining a place, and conspiracy constituted multiplicity and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in calculating drug quantity and applying the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts submitted to the jury.
- The court held the evidence, including surveillance footage and corroborating physical evidence, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected the multiplicity and Double Jeopardy challenge, concluding the statutes punished distinct offenses with different elements.
- The court affirmed both sentences, holding the district court’s drug-quantity and relevant-conduct findings were not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government; a conviction stands if any rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Manufacture” under federal drug law includes production and cultivation; circumstantial evidence of cultivating conditions (e.g., mounding soil, clearing vegetation, watering, fertilizing) can support a manufacturing conviction.
- Multiplicity concerns arise when a single offense is charged in multiple counts; Double Jeopardy is not violated where each offense requires proof of a fact the others do not and the charged conduct is legally distinct.
- Sentencing determinations on drug quantity and relevant conduct are factual findings reviewed for clear error; jointly undertaken activity may support attributing the full quantity to each participant when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s finding that the defendants cultivated marijuana on public land and participated in related distribution activity, held that the overlapping drug statutes and conspiracy count were not the same offense for Double Jeopardy purposes, and affirmed the drug-quantity-based Guideline sentences.


United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913 (10th Cir. 1995)