Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Celedonia Morales
  577 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that cumulative errors in jury instructions and defense counsel's argument deprived the appellant of a fair trial on the issue of knowledge.
• United States v. Woods
  568 F.2d 509· 6th Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while convictions for distribution and possession with intent to distribute (counts 1 and 2) could stand, separate convictions and sentences for multiple instances of possession with intent to distribute the same substance (counts 3 and 4) were multiplicitous
• United States v. Infelice
  506 F.2d 1358· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape recordings, finding the informant credible, and denying polygraph examinations, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. James
  495 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose tape recordings until trial did not constitute reversible error because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
• United States v. Amador Garcia, Jr.
  546 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not raise the issue of entrapment, as there was no indication the defendant's cousin acted as a government agent.
• United States v. Paulino
  887 F.2d 358· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentence enhancement for firearm possession because it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the drug offense.
• United States v. Melchor DE LOS Santos
  810 F.2d 1326· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence or the motion to reveal the identity of the confidential informant, and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the in camera proceeding.
• United States v. Vito LoRUSSO and Joseph Errante
  695 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court had the authority to submit a lesser-included offense to the jury even after granting a motion for acquittal on the greater offense, and that doing so did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also found sufficient evidence to suppo
• United States v. Winfield L. Roberts
  570 F.2d 999· D.C. Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Government's failure to fully disclose the details of the plea agreement during the Rule 11 proceedings required reversal and permitted the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Severiano Olivarez Gonzalez
  548 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err by not conducting a Jackson v. Denno hearing because the defendant waived the right to such a hearing by failing to properly challenge the admissibility of his confession. The court also held that collateral estoppel did not bar tes
• United States v. Golden
  532 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims regarding Miranda warnings, border searches, voir dire questions, expert testimony, and parole term provisions.
• United States v. Gardner
  475 F.2d 1273· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Gardner's conviction for simple possession, and reversed Le Boulanger's conspiracy convictions due to lack of substantial evidence for a third conspirator.
• United States v. Todisco
  667 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that pre-trial motions to suppress evidence were properly denied, including evidence obtained from pen registers, wiretaps, warrantless arrests, and searches, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding continuances or j
• United States v. Felts
  497 F.2d 80· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, that sufficient evidence supported his convictions for conspiracy and distribution, and that denial of his pre-trial discovery motion was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Tindle
  808 F.2d 319· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, continuances, witness testimony, or cross-examination limitations, but remanded for a Batson inquiry into potential jury exclusion.
• United States v. Dominguez
  615 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, and the insanity issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Vega
  589 F.2d 1147· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 32×
• United States v. Diaz
  577 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the currency found in the toilet tank was admissible under the plain view doctrine, as the officers were lawfully on the premises, the discovery was inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the bag was immediately apparent.
• United States v. Estrella
  567 F.2d 1151· 1st Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to disclose the informant's identity, nor was there a prejudicial variance between the arrest warrant and indictment, nor insufficient evidence of possession.
• United States v. Cordova
  537 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute is affirmed, as his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not triggered by the state arrest.
• United States v. Hill
  500 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that oral testimony supplementing a search warrant affidavit is permissible under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c) as it existed at the time, and that a warrantless automobile search can be constitutional under exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Dillard T. Madden, Jr.
  482 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination.
• United States v. Mendia
  731 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the heroin by turning it over to a third party and that the district court correctly denied a motion to grant immunity to a prospective defense witness.
• United States v. Lopez-Martinez
  725 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, and evidence of a prior offense was admissible, because the defendant need not know the specific type of controlled substance, only that it was a controlled substance, and the prior offense was relevant to his knowledge claim
• United States v. Pugliese
  712 F.2d 1574· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that expert testimony on heroin use was admissible and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and drug offenses.
• United States v. Jones
  687 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence despite chain of custody questions, in allowing the government's case agent to remain in the courtroom, or in admitting expert testimony based on a manufacturer's sample, and that the defendant
• United States v. Brown
  604 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that successive state and federal prosecutions are permissible under the dual sovereignty doctrine, and that a conspiracy conviction does not preclude a subsequent prosecution for a substantive offense arising from the same transaction. The court also affirmed the
• United States v. Davis
  582 F.2d 947· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants' claims regarding undisclosed plea agreements, denial of pretrial motions, and evidentiary rulings lacked merit.
• United States v. Olivas
  558 F.2d 1366· 10th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that separate sentences may not be imposed for offenses arising from the same transaction, even if convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Cheung KIN Ping and Lai Mong Wah
  555 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions were proper, Cheung's double jeopardy and delay claims were meritless, and the admission of his statements, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lai's claims regarding interpreter use and the handl
• United States v. Jones
  527 F.2d 817· D.C. Cir.· 1975-12-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the joinder of federal and D.C. Code charges in a single indictment and trial in the District of Columbia is constitutional and does not violate equal protection, even if penalties differ.
• United States v. Hawkins
  681 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 29×
  A defendant's disavowal of ownership and privacy interest in an item at the time of a search negates a reasonable expectation of privacy, precluding suppression of evidence found therein.
• United States v. Garza-Hernandez
  623 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's car was constitutional as it was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession.
• United States v. Ramos
  572 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 29×
• United States v. Francis
  646 F.2d 251· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3109 does not apply to commercial premises like a barbershop, and that the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule has less force when applied to businesses. The court also held that the arrest was based on probable cause and was not pretextual.
• United States v. DOE
  655 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 28×
  The court should not grant a pseudonym to an appellant who cooperated with the government and now seeks anonymity to avoid predictable consequences.
• United States v. Sherron Basey
  613 F.2d 198· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the admission of the voice identification, chemist's report, and driver's license was not erroneous.
• United States v. Krasny
  607 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-27 ·cited 28×
  The court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of a material witness's perjury.
• United States v. Herron
  567 F.2d 510· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-01 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that prior precedent compelled the conclusion that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of constructive possession.
• United States v. Lombardi
  550 F.2d 827· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of prior consistent testimony was proper to rebut an attack on credibility, and the jury instruction regarding the defendant's lifestyle was within the court's discretion.
• United States v. Meril Martinez Rangel
  534 F.2d 147· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to compel disclosure of an informant's identity, admitting hearsay statements, or denying the entrapment defense as a matter of law.
• United States v. Martin
  489 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's attempt to cover up the crime was proper, and that the defendant was not denied due process or effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. KIN Ping Cheung and Sammy Cho
  485 F.2d 689· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in declaring a mistrial without manifest necessity, thus violating the defendants' double jeopardy rights upon retrial.
• United States v. Mohamed Salim
  855 F.2d 944· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 27×
  A deposition taken abroad under foreign law, even with procedural differences from U.S. standards, may be admissible in a criminal trial if the defendant had an opportunity for similar cross-examination and the foreign procedures are not so unreliable as to violate fundamental fa
• United States v. Wilks
  629 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting a superseding indictment, amending the bill of particulars, denying continuances, admitting testimony of a witness, or refusing to dismiss the case for lost evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the
• United States v. Martinez
  616 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Briscoe
  574 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
• United States v. Clark
  928 F.2d 639· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of previously prosecuted conduct does not bar a subsequent prosecution if it only tends to prove an element of the second offense, rather than establishing the entirety of an essential element. It also held that overt acts are not required elements fo
• United States v. Aureliano Galindo Vasquez
  909 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
• United States v. Ware
  897 F.2d 1538· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that police officers deputized as federal agents could lawfully execute a wiretap under Oklahoma law, and that evidence of prior convictions could be admitted to show scheme or motive. Enhanced sentences were upheld under the sentencing guidelines.