Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Mahmoud Safari
  849 F.2d 891· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that collateral estoppel does not apply when the federal government prosecutes after an unsuccessful state action due to the lack of identity of parties. The court also affirmed the admissibility of evidence seized and the convictions.
• United States v. Meredith
  824 F.2d 1418· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in jury selection, rereading of testimony, merger of offenses, sufficiency of evidence, or admission of co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Dickens
  775 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination associating the defendant with an organized crime group was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Suzan Joseph Daoud
  741 F.2d 478· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in refusing a curative instruction regarding the defendant's request for counsel, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that questioning the defendant about her ability to pay for counsel was permiss
• United States v. Selwyn Chavis
  719 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not permit a defendant to waive the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict in a federal criminal trial.
• United States v. Boyd
  696 F.2d 63· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that keys seized during a warrantless arrest were admissible because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and even if suppressed, there was ample other evidence to convict.
• United States v. Benedict
  647 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to acts of foreign officials unless federal agents substantially participated in a joint venture, and the unavailability of physical evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Gillespie
  650 F.2d 127· 7th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 4×
  Evidence and confession obtained from an illegal search and arrest are inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Madalone
  492 F. Supp. 916· S.D. Fla.· 1980-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who voluntarily submits to U.S. customs inspection in a foreign country, knows they must disembark in the U.S., and entrusts heroin-laden baggage to a companion, is not a "true in-transit" passenger for purposes of the importation statute. The cour
• United States v. Herminio Cruz
  603 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to quash the search warrant, the admission of the alleged confession, the reasonable doubt instruction, the prosecutor's closing argument, and the denial of post-trial motions were all without merit.
• United States v. Rippy
  606 F.2d 1150· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding delayed notification, Jencks Act sanctions, entrapment, and prior-crimes evidence did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Young
  593 F.2d 891· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the conviction stands, the sentence must be reconsidered because the record does not affirmatively show the reasons for the more severe sentence imposed after retrial.
• Goodson v. United States
  564 F.2d 1071· 4th Cir.· 1977-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit, one of his concurrent sentences must be vacated due to improper cumulative sentencing for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin.
• United States v. Hunt
  548 F.2d 268· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of twelve packets of heroin, even if discovered through an illegal search, was harmless error because overwhelming independent evidence established the appellant's guilt.
• United States v. Mejia
  529 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's duty to report to jail was reversible error due to its high prejudicial impact and low probative value. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to jury instructions on entrapment.
• United States v. Ramirez
  506 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for possession and importation, and deeming any error in the conspiracy conviction harmless under the concurrent sentence doctrine.
• United States v. Camillo Rizzuto
  504 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy and possession of narcotics with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Euclid Tutwiler, Jr.
  505 F.2d 758· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the motion to suppress was properly denied because customs agents had probable cause to search, seize, and arrest the defendant and his companions.
• United States v. Hovsep Chambian Caramian
  468 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible, despite his claims of coercion and language barriers.
• United States v. Gordils
  982 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search due to exigent circumstances, that the evidence was sufficient to support Bastar's convictions, and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was p
• United States v. Yahya M. Ahmed
  980 F.2d 161· 2d Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 3×
  The introduction of evidence of a defendant's failure to appear to show consciousness of guilt in a prior narcotics trial does not bar a subsequent prosecution for bail jumping, as the offenses have different operative facts and the evidence was not used to establish an essential
• United States v. Hayden
  119 F.4th 832· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-03 ·cited 2×
  A within-guideline sentence is substantively reasonable, and a district court does not err by imposing standard conditions of supervised release without orally describing each, provided the defendant had notice and opportunity to object.
• United States v. Willa M. Johnson
  991 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's luggage and her detention at the border constituted a routine border inspection, which did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Son Anh CHU
  988 F.2d 981· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction stating possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance alone may be sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession was erroneous. Such an instruction improperly intrudes on the jury's deliberative process.
• United States v. Stevens
  985 F.2d 1175· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural flaws in the sentencing calculation.
• United States v. Sagaribay
  982 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if the officers did not strictly comply with the "knock and announce" statute, and that Rueda's confession was admissible.
• United States v. Kamorudeen Adekunle
  980 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the detention of suspected alimentary canal drug smugglers, even for extended periods exceeding 100 hours, was constitutional if supported by reasonable suspicion and justified by the suspects' own actions in delaying the expulsion of contraband.
• United States v. Peay
  972 F.2d 71· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's error in denying a party the opportunity to impeach a witness was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• United States v. Muyideen Adewale Alarape
  969 F.2d 349· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to ask specific voir dire questions regarding potential juror prejudice against the defendant's national origin or religion, nor in refusing questions probing juror bias towards law enforcement, as the case
• Billy-Eko v. United States
  968 F.2d 281· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 2×
  A federal defendant's failure to raise constitutional claims on direct appeal constitutes a procedural default barring review in a § 2255 petition, absent cause and prejudice.
• United States v. Benitez-Arreguin
  973 F.2d 823· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that lawful possession of property, even if containing contraband, carries a legitimate expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes.
• United States v. Syed Shaft Imran
  964 F.2d 1313· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in excluding expert testimony, in its jury charge regarding the defendant's right not to testify, or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Guajardo
  950 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application of career offender provisions and the denial of a downward departure based on age and health were proper.
• United States v. Lino A. Celio
  945 F.2d 180· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state police's search of the truck, based on the DEA's suspicion and request, was permissible under the collective knowledge doctrine, and the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Chauncey Gilbert
  936 F.2d 377· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the initial encounter between the defendant and the officers was not a Fourth Amendment seizure because, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. The court also found no error in quashing the defendant's subpo
• United States v. Jordan
  927 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 2×
  A defendant can be liable as an aider or abetter of a 'causer' and as a co-conspirator under the Pinkerton theory, even when the principal's liability is based on causing an act to be done under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
• United States v. Miller
  925 F.2d 695· 4th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 2×
  A police officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant based on an informant's tip when a substantial portion of that tip is corroborated by the officer's personal observation, even if the informant is not previously known to be reliable.
• United States v. Clark
  891 F.2d 501· 4th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant's repeated denials of ownership of a suitcase preclude him from asserting a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in its contents, even if the detention of the suitcase ripened into a de facto arrest.
• United States v. Nunez
  877 F.2d 1475· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Heriberto Asencio
  873 F.2d 639· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's action in selling narcotics to a suspected buyer, even in a reverse buy operation, does not constitute outrageous misconduct that violates due process or warrants dismissal under supervisory power.
• United States v. Lujan
  796 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy to justify the admission of co-conspirator statements and sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Walker
  720 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of distributing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute.
• United States v. DeBRIGHT
  710 F.2d 1404· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 2×
  When invoking the concurrent sentence doctrine, the court must either vacate the unreviewed conviction or reject the doctrine and review the conviction on the merits; affirming without review is improper.
• United States v. Jordan
  570 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence of possession was sufficient and that the defendant's admission was voluntary and admissible, despite not signing a waiver form.
• United States v. Aldaco
  564 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting testimony about a co-defendant's prior conviction was gravely prejudicial and reversible error.
• United States v. McGARRITY
  559 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the failure to record a brief bench discussion was harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Bell
  510 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense impeachment evidence, admitting evidence of other crimes, or in the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• United States v. Chico Esieke
  940 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant's detention at the border, even under restrictive conditions, was supported by reasonable suspicion and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that his subsequent statements were either voluntary or harmless error.
• United States v. Kennedy
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-25
  Robert Kennedy was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, following a search of his apartment that revealed drugs, scales, ammunition, and a handgun.
• United States v. Constantine Varazo, II
  118 F.4th 1346· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-10
  The court held that any error in admitting hearsay statements was harmless because the declarant later testified and was subject to cross-examination, and that chain of custody challenges generally go to the weight, not admissibility, of evidence.