Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Cicale
  691 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in considering certain hearsay statements as 'verbal acts' to satisfy the Geaney standard for Cicale's conviction.
• United States v. Whitney
  633 F.2d 902· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrants were validly issued based on sufficient probable cause, the execution of the warrants did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 due to exigent circumstances, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to reveal the informant's identity
• United States v. Sotomayor
  592 F.2d 1219· 2d Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that wiretap tapes obtained by state officers, even if not sealed according to stricter state law, are admissible in a federal prosecution if obtained in good faith compliance with prevailing norms and federal law governs admissibility.
• United States v. Orozco
  590 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1979-02-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search and seizure of evidence from the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of TECS cards was proper.
• United States v. Reese
  561 F.2d 894· D.C. Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find constructive possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in excluding a witness's testimony based on his Fifth Amendment privilege or in denying a motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Pena
  527 F.2d 1356· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the exclusion of the informant's statement was proper, the speedy trial claims were not meritorious, but the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Mohammad Dawood Nusraty
  867 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy, importation, and possession with intent to distribute, as mere presence at the airport and association with co-conspirators, even with a false exculpatory statement, did not prove knowi
• United States v. Kaiser
  660 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the destruction of a handwritten draft report by an agent did not violate the Jencks Act, but that the admission of certain exhibits without the agent's testimony was an abuse of discretion. It also held that evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy convi
• United States v. Jefferson
  650 F.2d 854· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the DEA agent lacked probable cause to detain the defendant, rendering the subsequent search unlawful. However, the conviction for bond jumping was affirmed.
• United States v. RICO
  594 F.2d 320· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the totality of the observed circumstances, including the defendants' conduct and evasive behavior, provided sufficient articulable facts to justify the initial investigative stop and subsequent arrest.
• Johnson v. United States
  506 F.2d 640· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction and the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the jury instructions were proper, the search warrant was valid, and the defendant received adequate assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Drummond
  481 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's repeated misconduct, including expressing personal belief in guilt, misrepresenting testimony, and asking argumentative questions, denied the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Aguirre
  716 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and that the trial court did not err in admitting prior similar acts testimony or in refusing to disclose the informant's whereabouts.
• United States v. Roman
  870 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to convict Roman on most counts, his convictions for conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise should have been merged, and the judgment should be corrected accordingly.
• United States v. Handy
  761 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge would adopt the Eleventh Circuit's definition of 'substantial question' as a 'close' question or one that could be decided the other way, rather than the majority's 'fairly debatable' standard.
• United States v. Siro T. Gutierrez
  559 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including association with a co-defendant and the presence of marked money, was insufficient as a matter of law to prove knowing participation in a drug conspiracy or the substantive offenses.
• United States v. Seijo
  537 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the government was not collaterally estopped from offering proof of possession at the second trial, and that the sentencing claims were without merit.
• United States v. Alphonso Galloway Burroughs
  830 F.2d 1574· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the wife's immunity was not a Brady violation because the defense learned of it and presented it to the jury, and the evidence was not material. Venue was proper as the defendant had a continuing stake in the drug sales in
• 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. Riad Youssef Rahme
  813 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 42×
  A defendant who fails to pay for a hotel room and whose luggage is lawfully taken by the hotel loses any legitimate expectation of privacy in that luggage, even if arrested. Statements by a coconspirator identifying a source and reassuring a listener are considered made in furthe
• United States v. Nanez
  694 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights were not violated, and his conviction and enhanced sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedure.
• United States v. Ernestine Scott
  545 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful because the informant's tip, corroborated by independent police work and the suspect's suspicious behavior, established probable cause.
• United States v. Arroyo
  494 F.2d 1316· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the government's actions did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that the trial was otherwise fair.
• United States v. Mims
  812 F.2d 1068· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the arrest warrant for Techau had probable cause, and evidence seized incident to arrest was admissible under the good faith exception. The court affirmed convictions for Techau and Le, but reversed Einfeldt's conviction for insufficient evidence of attempt.
• United States v. Corcione
  592 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's involvement in the criminal activity did not violate the appellants' due process rights, and other asserted errors were either meritless or harmless.
• United States v. Ramos-Zaragosa
  516 F.2d 141· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-19 ·cited 40×
• United States v. LEE
  506 F.2d 111· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded for supplementation on factual issues regarding an addict-informant's testimony before a final decision on conviction.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  700 F.2d 196· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the exclusion of the wife's testimony was harmless error, the co-conspirator's statement was admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the judge's questioning did not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Edwards
  498 F.2d 496· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the FAA regulations requiring search of carry-on baggage at airports were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the search of the defendant's bag was lawful.
• United States v. Wali Ebbin Rashee Ross
  963 F.3d 1056· 11th Cir.· 2020-06-24 ·cited 38×
  A suspect's alleged abandonment of a place or thing implicates only the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, not Article III standing, and the government waives the issue if not raised below.
• United States v. LAM Kwong-Wah
  924 F.2d 298· D.C. Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that venue was improper for the attempted distribution charge because Lam's own actions did not occur in the district, and the government failed to prove he aided and abetted the principals. The court also remanded for resentencing due to errors in applying the Sen
• United States v. J.B. Rush
  890 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership of luggage negates a legitimate expectation of privacy, justifying its search without consent. The court also held that a firearm found in a car used in furtherance of a drug offense warrants a sentencing enhancem
• United States v. Hillard
  701 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that substituting an alternate juror after deliberations began, while a violation of Rule 24(c), was not reversible error absent a showing of prejudice, and that the initial wiretap authorization was supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Augustine Ybarra Ortiz
  603 F.2d 76· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, continuance, and suppression of evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Walden
  578 F.2d 966· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance without stating reasons and in failing to inspect potentially discoverable Jencks Act material. The case is remanded for further proceedings on these issues.
• United States v. Chatman
  573 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's person was incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause, and therefore the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. McMANUS
  560 F.2d 747· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule was properly applied, probable cause existed for the search, and the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed.
• United States v. Garcia
  530 F.2d 650· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes, even without a limiting instruction, did not constitute plain error when the statement was not overly damaging and the evidence of guilt was otherwise substantial. The c
• United States v. Lewis
  511 F.2d 798· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the government's misleading pretrial representations about not intending to use the defendant's statement, combined with the trial court's admission of that statement for impeachment, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Elbert Lamar Boston
  510 F.2d 35· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-09 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appellant had standing to challenge the search of his companion for the possession count, but not for the importation count. The court also found the confession to be voluntary.
• United States v. Suarez
  487 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a witness's violation of a sequestration order, when corrected, does not automatically warrant reversal, and that circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt for a conviction.
• United States v. Richardson
  477 F.2d 1280· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for drug offenses was valid, rejecting all grounds for appeal.
• United States v. Amen
  831 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-07 ·cited 37×
  The court held that prison inmates impliedly consent to the monitoring of their telephone calls, and that the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute does not apply to those who aid and abet the leader of the enterprise.
• United States v. Olatunji Abayomi
  820 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and that the exclusion of photographs was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. DOE
  525 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the post-trial in camera proceeding with a confidential informant was proper and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Romero-Reyna
  867 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded the case for a hearing on the Batson challenge regarding the jury selection process.
• United States v. Shurn
  849 F.2d 1090· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary and instructional rulings.
• United States v. Mohammad Ali Bastanipour
  697 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's attempted pretrial appeal of a non-appealable order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction, and various failures to preserve evidence or disclose information did not violate the defendant's rights or warrant a mistrial or new trial.
• United States v. Vasquez-Santiago
  602 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and that the consent to search the suitcase was voluntary, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.