21 U.S.C. § 841(A)(1) (Possession With Intent To Distribute)

99 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Vera
  701 F.2d 1349· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 225×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting voir dire, denying a challenge for cause, or in denying motions for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. The prosecutor's comments during closing argument were also deemed not prej
• United States v. Grier
  866 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel production of pen register materials, as the defendant had ample opportunity for cross-examination and the denial was not prejudicial.
• United States v. LEE
  743 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 100×
• United States v. Harrell
  737 F.2d 971· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
• United States v. Stratton
  779 F.2d 820· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 85×
  The court held that a criminal conviction by an eleven-person jury is valid under Rule 23(b) when a juror is excused during deliberations, and that various evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Martin
  599 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause for every named probable converser in a wiretap application, and that an innocent, immaterial misstatement in an affidavit does not invalidate a wiretap order. The court reversed Davenport's conviction for f
• United States v. Ocampo
  890 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the police actions constituted a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, not an arrest, and that the evidence seized was admissible. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence for the firearm charge and the enhanced sentence for th
• United States v. Gerald Levy (89-5980) & Calvin Black (89-6099)
  904 F.2d 1026· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or sentencing decisions, and that the challenged statute was not unconstitutionally vague or disproportionate.
• United States v. Dario Dicesare
  765 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Keck
  773 F.2d 759· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting transcripts with speaker identities, or admitting certain conversations, and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Smith
  802 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-16 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, the government's conduct was not outrageous, and inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal of a conviction.
• United States v. Zabaneh
  837 F.2d 1249· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court erred in sustaining appellant's conviction under count five and in failing to make required findings before admitting extrinsic offense testimony, but affirmed holdings on remaining points of error. The court also found that venue was proper
• United States v. Hill
  589 F.2d 1344· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts for illegal acquisition and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Geno Pasquale Raffone
  693 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 45×
  Convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise are affirmed, as the evidence was sufficient and no reversible error occurred.
• United States v. McCLURE
  734 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, discovery, or a specific jury instruction, and that the indictment was sufficient.
• United States v. Pollock
  926 F.2d 1044· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the stop was lawful, consent to search was valid, and prior conviction evidence was admissible to prove intent. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove a continuous course of conduct for the Travel Act conviction.
• United States v. Odell Marshall
  532 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-24 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, informant disclosure, discovery requests, or in admitting prior convictions and prior bad acts evidence. Jury instructions were also found to be proper.
• United States v. Turpin
  920 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, and that the denial of the motion to suppress and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines were not erroneous.
• United States v. Harris
  733 F.2d 994· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for attempting to possess heroin with intent to distribute, but sufficient for conspiracy to distribute heroin. The exclusion of defense testimony regarding the defendant's state of mind was an error requiri
• United States v. Paris
  827 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. COX
  752 F.2d 741· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper comments on the defendants' failure to testify did not warrant a new trial given the strong evidence, the curative instruction, and the isolated nature of the misconduct. The court also rejected other grounds for appeal.
• United States v. Olson
  716 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the harmless error rule does not apply to the procedural requirements for imposing enhanced sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and failure to comply with these requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.
• United States v. Snyder
  872 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting a deceased witness's grand jury testimony without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, the error was harmless because the defendant later corroborated key parts of the testimony. The court also found no plain er
• United States v. DeLEON
  498 F.2d 1327· 7th Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial, including issues related to a defendant's absence, jury instructions, cross-examination restrictions, and the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. Jennings
  945 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court must inquire into defendants' reasons for seeking new counsel and that the case must be remanded for resentencing regarding the drug quantity calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Kubiak
  704 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all three appellants, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to suppress, dismissals under the Speedy Trial Act, sufficiency of evidence, or Brady Act claims.
• United States v. Pozos
  697 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during a felony, and that the trial court did not err in denying a change of venue or suppressing evidence.
• United States v. Bockius
  564 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike testimony or in its jury instructions, as the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from discovery violations and the court's comments did not shift the burden of proof.
• United States v. Ira Glen Anthony Walters
  904 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of a photograph of a defendant holding a firearm was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug conspiracy and related offenses.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Pugliese
  712 F.2d 1574· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that expert testimony on heroin use was admissible and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and drug offenses.
• Sperling v. United States
  692 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's current motion to vacate his continuing criminal enterprise conviction should be rejected due to inconsistent positions taken in prior proceedings.
• United States v. Valencia-Lucena
  925 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed all convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing, finding the district court's downward departure from sentencing guidelines was improper.
• United States v. Audelio Arzola-Amaya
  867 F.2d 1504· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants and that the trial court did not err in denying requests to poll the jury regarding mid-trial publicity.
• United States v. Koua Thao
  712 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute opium but insufficient for convictions related to using the mail to facilitate the possession and importation of opium.
• United States v. Martin
  489 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's attempt to cover up the crime was proper, and that the defendant was not denied due process or effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. McKENZIE
  818 F.2d 115· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 26×
  Customs officials have authority to search the baggage of individuals in transit through the United States, and possession of controlled substances within U.S. territory establishes jurisdiction for drug offenses, regardless of the intent to distribute within the U.S. or pass thr
• United States v. Dazzo
  672 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 26×
  A sentence may be vacated if the trial judge fails to consider all relevant sentencing criteria, such as rehabilitation, and instead relies solely on deterrence or retaliation.
• United States v. Hayes
  474 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 26×
  A sentence under the Federal Youth Corrections Act is in lieu of all other penalties, including fines, and therefore fines cannot be imposed in addition to a commitment under the Act.
• United States v. Lewis
  902 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that questions asked by an unknown caller are not hearsay because they do not assert anything, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict Lewis of conspiracy.
• United States v. Irwin Posner
  868 F.2d 720· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, but the defendant was denied his right to allocution and must be resentenced.
• United States v. Herminio Cruz
  568 F.2d 781· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 22×
  Prosecution for conspiracy to distribute heroin after conviction for possession with intent to distribute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Wake
  948 F.2d 1422· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the schoolyard statute applies when a defendant possesses drugs with intent to distribute them somewhere, even if the distribution itself does not occur within the 1,000-foot zone. The court also held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence o
• United States v. Sanders
  928 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the "design to conceal or disguise" element required for money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) for two car purchases.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez
  777 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, separate convictions for distribution and possession were appropriate, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the indictment was sufficient. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Mack
  494 F.2d 1204· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a sentence corrected to include a statutorily mandated parole term does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, imposing that term in the defendant's absence renders the sentence illegal and subject to challenge under Rule 35.
• United States v. Posner
  865 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent marijuana transactions was admissible to show predisposition for cocaine charges, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. However, the imposition of a supervised release term was improper.
• United States v. Rodarte
  596 F.2d 141· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of evidence of a prior foreign conviction
• United States v. Laneesha Colston
  4 F.4th 1179· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government need only prove knowledge that a controlled substance was involved, not knowledge of the specific substance, to convict under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846.
• United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu
  962 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 16×