Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine

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

• United States v. Harmon
  918 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a cooperating witness and evidence of prior drug transportation, as the jury was properly instructed to assess credibility and the probative value outweighed prejudice.
• United States v. Radka
  904 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conclusion of exigent circumstances was supported by the record, warranting affirmance.
• United States v. Menesses
  962 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court reversed Harold Bratovich's conviction due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The court affirmed the denial of Barreto's motion to suppress her confession and the increase in her offense level.
• United States v. Adan Chavez
  947 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that the district court's upward adjustment of Campos's sentence for being an organizer was not clearly err
• United States v. Berzon
  941 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 14×
  A defendant must be provided with notice and an adequate opportunity to comment on factual information used in sentencing, especially when that information comes from a separate proceeding.
• United States v. Williams
  922 F.2d 737· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 845b does not require the defendant to know the minor's age, only that they knowingly employed someone in a drug offense. It also held that a defendant cannot receive a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on conduct for which th
• United States v. Vazquez
  857 F.2d 857· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that bringing two suspects together, even with inconsistent prior statements, does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda unless police actions are designed to elicit an incriminating response. The court also held that newly discovered evidence of a w
• United States v. Roberson
  897 F.2d 1092· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on Count 2, the denial of the motion to suppress for Count 4 was proper, and procedural errors were harmless. However, the forfeiture of substitute property was improperly valued.
• United States v. McCARTHY
  961 F.2d 972· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excusing jurors for cause, admitting co-conspirator statements, admitting a telephone conversation, refusing to send cocaine packaging to the jury, determining the base offense level, adjusting for leadership role, or adjusting f
• United States v. Salazar
  958 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Ramos' convictions and reversed the district court's acquittal of Salazar, reinstating the jury verdict against her.
• United States v. Pulley
  922 F.2d 1283· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allowing two government agents to remain in the courtroom as witnesses violated Rule 615, but the error was harmless. The court also affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the hearsay or sentencing departure issues.
• United States v. Evans
  883 F.2d 496· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appointment book and the officer's testimony, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Arbelaez
  812 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be punished for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive offenses if they are not distinct under the Blockburger test, and that separate sentences for aiding and abetting possession and distribution are impermissible when arising from
• United States v. Holt
  969 F.2d 685· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed conspiracy convictions and sentences for Perfetto and Ball, vacated CCE convictions for Holt and Perfetto, and vacated Holt's obstruction of justice sentence for a new hearing.
• United States v. Quarles
  955 F.2d 498· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence seized during the stops and searches was admissible, and that the convictions and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Caves
  890 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless roadside search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception due to probable cause, the station house search warrant was sufficiently particular, and the inventory searches of the purse were lawful.
• United States v. Di Pasquale
  864 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Batson hearing for Italian-Americans, denying a motion for recusal, enhancing sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 without specific notice, or in its grand jury selection process.
• United States v. Casey
  835 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire and that the verdict forms did not improperly amend the indictment.
• United States v. Octavie Fince
  670 F.2d 1356· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's requests for a chemist, both before and during trial, because the requests were untimely and failed to demonstrate necessity for an adequate defense.
• United States v. Irvin Alamia Moran (91-6309) & Rena Morales (91-6310)
  998 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the time granted for filing pretrial motions is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day calculation, and that the traffic stop was constitutional.
• United States v. Scott Tisdale (90-3302)
  952 F.2d 934· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-02 ·cited 6×
  The court should remand the firearm enhancement aspect of the sentence because the district court failed to articulate specific factual grounds for finding that the defendant reasonably should have foreseen his coconspirator's possession of the weapon.
• United States v. Fletcher
  487 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that issues regarding chain of custody go to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence.
• United States v. Arce
  997 F.2d 1123· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings on jury selection, evidentiary matters, or prosecutorial comments, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Williams
  985 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug offenses but reversed convictions for firearm offenses due to a defective jury instruction and insufficient evidence for two defendants.
• United States v. Pena
  983 F.2d 71· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the cocaine's existence or aided and abetted its possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Alvarado
  982 F.2d 659· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support convictions for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the jury instructions on importation did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Fragoso
  978 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in its Jencks Act determinations, its admission of coconspirator statements, its jury instructions, or its sentencing procedures, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Hallock
  941 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to counsel of choice by failing to raise the issue in the district court and that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Zapata-Alvarez
  911 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the federal sentencing guidelines were properly applied.
• United States v. Hurtado
  899 F.2d 371· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard to determine the voluntariness of consent to search, requiring remand. The court also held that the defendant was not in custo
• United States v. Wiley
  847 F.2d 480· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 4×
  A defendant must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area to have standing to challenge a search warrant.
• United States v. Stuckey
  917 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in disqualifying counsel due to a conflict of interest, nor did he err in refusing to allow the defendant to waive that conflict.
• United States v. Frink
  912 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that sufficient evidence demonstrated the appellants' willful participation in the drug conspiracy, supporting their convictions.
• United States v. Maltos
  985 F.2d 743· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Daniel
  962 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was not forced to proceed pro se and that the denial of a minor participant reduction was not plain error.
• United States v. Breit
  767 F.2d 1084· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain witness statements did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the request for the information was general, and the undisclosed evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
• United States v. Flick
  716 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motions to dismiss the indictment without a sufficient factual basis to evaluate the double jeopardy claim.
• Cruickshank v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-19
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to jurisdiction lacked merit and were procedurally barred.
• Miami Beach Cosm. & Plastic Surgery Ctr. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  571 F. Supp. 2d 322· S.D. Fla.· 2013-05-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for unpaid medical services constituted state law breach of contract claims concerning the rate of payment, not federal claims preempted by ERISA regarding the right to payment.
• United States v. de Jesus-Rios
  990 F.2d 672· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-07
  The court held that Eva Rios's pretrial identification was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable, and the error was not harmless, thus her conviction must be vacated. The evidence was sufficient to support Jose Rios's conviction.
• United States v. Hobson
  893 F.2d 1267· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-07
  An isolated act which simultaneously violates two statutes can demonstrate the continuity necessary to establish a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO.
• United States v. Corrado Bonfant
  851 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-08
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims of Fifth Amendment violations and insufficient evidence.