Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Orson G. White
  648 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the police conduct, involving drawing guns and ordering occupants out of a vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, constituted an arrest rather than a permissible investigatory stop.
• United States v. Check
  582 F.2d 668· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court erred by admitting significant portions of the undercover officer's testimony, which constituted inadmissible hearsay, and that this error was prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Daniels
  572 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 72×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's unrelated, post-crime act to prove predisposition for entrapment is improper and requires reversal.
• United States v. Wallace
  848 F.2d 1464· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting Wallace's prior heroin conviction for impeachment and that the government's concession regarding Jencks Act notes required remand.
• United States v. Wilkinson
  754 F.2d 1427· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed convictions for drug offenses, finding sufficient evidence for continuing criminal enterprise, admissible prior consistent statements, and proper denial of multiple conspiracy charges and wiretap necessity.
• United States v. Marable
  574 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Marable of heroin conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or excluding testimony.
• United States v. West
  574 F.2d 1131· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of grand jury testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
• United States v. Santiago
  906 F.2d 867· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 68×
  The court held that prior uncharged narcotics transactions can be considered for sentencing if part of the same course of conduct, but a defendant cannot be denied acceptance of responsibility for refusing to admit to such uncharged conduct.
• United States v. Caro
  569 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admissible evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Baldarrama
  566 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and that the admission of a prior conviction was proper for showing identity. The court also found no reversible error in other evidentiary or procedural claims.
• United States v. Anderson
  509 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the use of an in camera hearing to protect informant identity was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Jennings
  527 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a cautionary instruction regarding co-conspirator hearsay testimony, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt.
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.
• United States v. Milham
  590 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the van was permissible under a forfeiture statute, the admission of a pistol into evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of coconspirator sta
• United States v. Cirillo
  468 F.2d 1233· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single, ongoing conspiracy, and that the defendant's awareness of specific shipments was not required for conviction.
• United States v. Rogers
  921 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required for routine post-conviction presentence interviews, and that delays caused by speedy trial motions are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. German Hernandez-Miranda
  601 F.2d 1104· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court did not err in giving a flight instruction, admitting evidence of bond forfeiture, admitting evidence of a prior conviction, or imposing consecutive sentences.
• United States v. Jones
  545 F.2d 1112· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-09 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Sylvester's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the recording of conversations with an informant and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court reversed Judith's conviction, finding insufficient evidence that she knowingly part
• United States v. Bagley
  537 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that while the statement was against the declarant's penal interest, the trial judge's determination that corroborating circumstances did not clearly indicate the statement's trustworthiness was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Buggs
  904 F.2d 1070· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove firearm possession and interstate commerce, and that negotiated drug quantities were properly included in sentencing calculations.
• United States v. Raper
  676 F.2d 841· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the conviction of appellant Childs and Raper for unlawful possession of heroin with intent to distribute, finding sufficient evidence for constructive possession.
• United States v. Ayala
  643 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity must yield when the informant's testimony is essential to a fair determination of the accused's defense, particularly when the informant was a participant in the criminal activity and their testimo
• United States v. Thomas
  586 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and using a communication facility, and that the voice identification testimony was proper.
• United States v. Calhoun
  510 F.2d 861· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-24 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, in its voir dire, or in excluding defense witnesses, and that the speedy trial claim was without merit. However, it found that Counts V and VI should have been consolidated.
• United States v. Moreno
  536 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 61×
  The court held that while the procedure for determining a Fifth Amendment privilege claim in camera is not definitively decided, the trial court erred by sustaining the privilege too broadly, excluding potentially material testimony without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Herrera
  757 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin (Counts One and Two), but reversed the conviction for possession of heroin found in a footlocker (Count Four) due to insufficient evidence of con
• United States v. Claudio Calderone
  917 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 58×
  The double jeopardy rule announced in Grady v. Corbin does not bar the prosecution of the indictment in this case.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  573 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 58×
• United States v. Garcia
  496 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 58×
  Prior Miranda warnings are not required to validate consent searches, and statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used to establish consent.
• United States v. Meggett
  875 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the presence of firearms in a drug trafficker's apartment, where narcotics were stored and processed, constituted 'use' of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, even if the firearms were not fired or brandished at the scene of distribut
• United States v. Vazquez
  605 F.2d 1269· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 57×
  The court held that delays of 7 to 13 days in sealing wiretap tapes were sufficiently explained by personnel and equipment shortages, and thus the tapes were admissible. The court also found that the wiretap authorization affidavits established probable cause.
• United States v. Cardona
  650 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and one possession count, but vacated convictions for another possession count due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Molden Atkinson and Jimmy Cicero Atkinson
  512 F.2d 1235· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in managing the trial or in jury instructions, but that consecutive sentences for Molden Atkinson were improper for a single act.
• United States v. Slade
  627 F.2d 293· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-04 ·cited 55×
  The court held that while errors occurred, they did not contribute to the conviction, except for appellant Watson.
• United States v. Aiello
  771 F.2d 621· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-07 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or the handling of juror contact, except for a procedural issue regarding Scaduto's lesser-included offenses.
• United States v. Burns
  684 F.2d 1066· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence seized during the arrest and post-arrest statements, and that the defendant's post-arrest statements to an Assistant U.S. Attorney, though obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, constituted
• United States v. GAY
  567 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance based on a co-defendant's conditional offer to provide exculpatory testimony.
• United States v. Brown
  562 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence from a dismissed count without a cautionary instruction, nor in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or appoint an expert, and that the nondisclosure of certain informant statements was not prejudicial
• United States v. Mosley
  496 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the Bueno-type issue, where the defendant claims the government agent supplied the contraband.
• United States v. Ortega
  471 F.2d 1350· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-11 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying defendants' motions to identify, disclose the whereabouts of, or produce the government informant, as the informant's testimony was not shown to be essential to a fair determination of the issues.
• United States v. Romano
  825 F.2d 725· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a hearing to contest the pre-sentence report and in imposing the maximum sentence, as the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the information and the sentence was within statutory limits and proportionate to the
• United States v. Jackson
  627 F.2d 1198· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Jackson's prior manslaughter conviction for impeachment, nor in admitting evidence of his voluntary return of money, and that the trial judge did not exhibit bias.
• United States v. Riggins
  563 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Riggins' conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.
• United States v. PUI KAN LAM
  483 F.2d 1202· 2d Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the warrantless electronic interception of a conversation in a stranger's apartment, under suspicious circumstances and with no reasonable expectation of privacy, was not illegal under the Fourth Amendment or the relevant statute. The court also found sufficie
• United States v. Bailey
  691 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that even if the initial arrest was illegal, the evidence seized was admissible because the defendant's subsequent flight and struggle constituted a new, distinct crime for which he could be lawfully arrested, and the search was incident to that lawful arrest.
• United States v. Ross
  655 F.2d 1159· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the examination of the inside of the paper bag was legal and that Arkansas v. Sanders should not be applied retroactively.
• United States v. Garcia
  528 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the conviction of Mario Sandoval should be reversed due to plain error in failing to provide a cautionary jury instruction regarding the uncorroborated testimony of a paid informant, while affirming the convictions of Guillermo Sandoval and Joe Garcia due to s
• United States v. Watkins
  519 F.2d 294· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the rent receipts were improperly admitted as hearsay and that the government failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. D'Amato
  493 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or juror issues.
• United States v. Legato
  480 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-14 ·cited 50×