Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Wilfredo Diaz-Villafane
  874 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 349×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in suspending a local rule and that its substantial upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was reasonable.
• United States v. Oates
  560 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 256×
  The court held that the chemist's report and worksheet were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Carmine Tramunti
  513 F.2d 1087· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 252×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest DiNapoli and Papa and to search the suitcase, and therefore the contents were admissible.
• United States v. Petrozziello
  548 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 230×
  The court held that the admission of the gun was proper as it was in plain view during a lawful seizure of the vehicle, and that the defendant's statement was admissible as he failed to raise objections below.
• United States v. Buenrostro
  868 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 202×
  The court held that a defendant's status as a courier does not automatically qualify them for a 'minimal participant' reduction under the sentencing guidelines, and a district court's refusal to depart from the guidelines is not appealable if it results in a lawful sentence.
• United States v. Carson
  702 F.2d 351· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 178×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's convictions of all three appellants for conspiracy to distribute heroin, finding that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and each appellant's participation in it.
• United States v. Epifanio Sanchez-Lopez
  879 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 146×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for election of counts because the conspiracy charges for cocaine and heroin were multiplicious. The court also found that the joinder of alienage counts with drug counts was proper and that the judge's comments d
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Houshang Sheikh
  654 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction when the defendant's alleged coconspirators were acquitted, but affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Williams
  622 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 134×
  A DEA agent has statutory authority to make a warrantless arrest for criminal contempt committed in his presence, and evidence obtained from such an arrest and subsequent search is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if the officer acted in a reasonable good-fa
• United States v. Kirk
  534 F.2d 1262· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in admitting recorded conversations or denying severance motions.
• United States v. Estepa
  471 F.2d 1132· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-29 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the indictment must be dismissed because the grand jury presentation was improper due to the prosecutor's misleading use of hearsay testimony.
• United States v. Garza
  608 F.2d 659· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 128×
  Improper prosecutorial comments during closing arguments, which personally vouched for witness credibility and suggested the government had already determined guilt, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Barrera
  547 F.2d 1250· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute heroin.
• United States v. Wilson
  657 F.2d 755· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 120×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to convict appellants on the conspiracy charge, it was insufficient for the possession and distribution charges against Wilson, and the possession charge against Hendrix. Joinder and severance issues were found to be without m
• United States v. Richards
  638 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 119×
  The dissenting judge argues that sealed mail delivered to an addressee should require a warrant for search, unlike mail still in postal service possession.
• United States v. Figueroa
  618 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 118×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the jury's verdict and the trial court's decisions regarding evidence admissibility and joint trial.
• United States v. Rios
  611 F.2d 1335· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its handling of coconspirator statements and committed prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, requiring a new trial. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, finding the defendant lacked standing for most c
• United States v. Claudell Martine White and Phillip White
  569 F.2d 263· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, but sufficient to support Phillip's conviction for the substantive offense of heroin possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Alphonse Cirillo
  499 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the omission of a minimization directive from a wiretap order was a technical defect, not rendering the order invalid if the investigation substantially complied with the statute. It also held that expert testimony on narcotics jargon was admissible and that d
• United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez
  521 F.2d 259· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 104×
  The court reversed the conviction, holding that the condition of probation requiring the defendant to submit to search at any time upon request by a law enforcement officer was improper. The court reasoned that while probationers may be subject to searches by probation officers,
• United States v. Torres
  901 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 102×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one firearm conviction and vacated others for resentencing due to jury instruction errors regarding continuing criminal enterprise.
• United States v. King
  552 F.2d 833· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the admission of deposition testimony under 18 U.S.C. § 3503 was constitutional, both facially and as applied, and that the defendants' departure from the deposition constituted a waiver of their objections.
• United States v. Martino
  664 F.2d 860· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of heroin was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, balancing the diminished expectation of privacy against the exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Staten
  581 F.2d 878· D.C. Cir.· 1978-05-09 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove appellant's possession of drugs and that the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was proper.
• United States v. Jones
  542 F.2d 186· 4th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for continuance and mistrial based on prejudicial publicity, nor in denying a motion to dismiss based on alleged taint from state immunity.
• United States v. Mapp
  476 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-28 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, but Mapp's conviction on the sale count was affirmed due to lack of standing to challenge the evidence used for that count.
• United States v. Hood
  493 F.2d 677· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the search and seizure of the heroin were lawful.
• United States v. Brown
  584 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the search warrants were valid, the jury instructions were adequate, and the recitation of Miranda warnings was harmless error, but the evidence was insufficient to convict Cleo Brown of conspiracy.
• United States v. Graham
  548 F.2d 1302· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 95×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the joinder and severance decisions were not abuses of discretion, leading to no reversible error.
• United States v. Dubrofsky
  581 F.2d 208· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the use of an electronic tracking device was not an unreasonable search, consent to search was valid, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, the warrant's execution was permissible under the circumstances, and consecutive sent
• United States v. Foster
  711 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-26 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and substantive counts, valid search warrants, and proper admission of evidence, with any errors deemed harmless.
• United States v. Valenzuela
  596 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession against Manuel Valenzuela, Corley, and Alonso Lizarraga, but reversed Bernardina Lizarraga's convictions due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Augustus Charles Bobo
  586 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 92×
  A defendant's consent to a mistrial, given through counsel, bars a subsequent double jeopardy claim, even if the mistrial was declared due to defense counsel's error and the defendant did not personally waive the right on the record.
• United States v. Perez
  526 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that probable cause existed for warrantless arrests and searches, and that sufficiency of evidence challenges were waived or supported by substantial evidence. Minor witnesses were competent.
• United States v. Clemons
  503 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1974-10-03 ·cited 92×
  The court held that admitting evidence of the defendant's prior arrest in California for drug possession was prejudicial error because it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence and its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial impact.
• United States v. Oropeza
  564 F.2d 316· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 89×
  The court held that possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin are lesser included offenses when the evidence of possession is solely derived from the distribution act, thus precluding consecutive sentences. However, the court affirmed convictions for conspir
• United States v. Batista-Polanco
  927 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 88×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for possession and conspiracy, that the informant's identity need not be disclosed, that the challenged statement was harmless error, and that sentencing enhancements were proper.
• United States v. Danilo Bautista Batimana and Jose Edgardo Noguera
  623 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish possession for Nicanor, and therefore insufficient to support the convictions of his alleged aiders and abettors.
• United States v. Inmon
  568 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 86×
  Denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final decision, and the government bears the burden of proving separate offenses by a preponderance of the evidence once the defendant makes a non-frivolous showing.
• United States v. Bloom
  538 F.2d 704· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-13 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other drug dealings, refusing an evidentiary hearing on wiretapping, or denying dismissal for speedy trial violations.
• United States v. Martino
  759 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 84×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the admission of a prior conviction was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Viserto
  596 F.2d 531· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 84×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding all appellate arguments to be without merit, including challenges to evidence admissibility, discovery rules, indictment duplicity, and jury instructions.
• United States v. Earnest Jackson, Jr.
  588 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that non-electronic eavesdropping from an adjacent motel room does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but reversed the possession conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Williams
  897 F.2d 1034· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to transfer venue, denying the motion for severance, admitting evidence seized under a warrant, applying the sentencing guidelines, or in its factual determinations regarding sentencing enhancements and base of
• United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris
  501 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's residence, nor was the trial court's active participation in questioning witnesses erroneous.
• United States v. Theron Clark
  475 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-08 ·cited 79×
  The court held that excluding the defendant and the public from a suppression hearing, except for the limited portion concerning secret profile criteria, was plain error. Additionally, the trial judge's jury instructions were so deficient as to constitute plain error.
• United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez
  547 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing improper cross-examination of character witnesses and by displaying hostility towards defense counsel, which collectively deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Perez
  491 F.2d 167· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-21 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin. The court also found that the admission of certain evidence and the prosecutor's
• United States v. Aleman
  592 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and possession, and that the admission of extrinsic evidence and prosecutorial comments did not constitute reversible error.