Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Ortiz
  857 F.2d 900· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting defense counsel's closing arguments by threatening to admit prior convictions if the defendant raised the issue of personal drug use.
• United States v. Carlo Palella
  846 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, the heroin evidence was admissible despite a less-than-perfect chain of custody, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the court found errors in sentencing due to the misapplica
• United States v. Rivera
  844 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated because the clock resumed upon the mandate's issuance, not earlier, and that the defendant's prosecution was not barred by a prior plea agreement as the conspiracies were distinct.
• United States v. Romero
  836 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal prosecution was not barred by a prior Puerto Rico court's suppression order, and that consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances were permissible.
• United States v. Martinez
  749 F.2d 601· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing an entrapment instruction for Annie Griego, but affirmed the conviction of Gloria Williams. The court also found no Speedy Trial Act violation or abuse of discretion in excluding certain testimony.
• United States v. Abdul Samad
  754 F.2d 1091· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Samad of importation and possession with intent to distribute heroin, but sufficient to convict Hanan of both offenses. The court also held that a prosecutor's improper comment during closing arguments did not constitut
• United States v. Lawson
  682 F.2d 1012· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 26×
  A stipulated trial is not equivalent to a guilty plea requiring Rule 11 inquiries unless the defendant admits guilt and waives all issues. Constructive possession can be established by dominion and control, even in jointly occupied premises where contraband is in plain view.
• United States v. Tousant
  619 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a specific jury instruction regarding an informer's potential drug addiction, denying motions to suppress recordings, disclose an informer's identity, or sever the trial, and that pre-indictment delay did not violate due
• United States v. Levy
  578 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to the admission of statements regarding prior cooperation by refusing a curative instruction, and that offers to cooperate made without condition are not inadmissible plea bargaining statements. The court also found the trial j
• United States v. Gates
  557 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel and that other asserted errors were either waived or without merit.
• United States v. SIR KUE Chin
  534 F.2d 1032· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging one conspiracy and evidence showing two does not require reversal if it does not affect substantial rights, and that striking an overt act from the indictment is not an impermissible amendment.
• United States v. Mendoza
  473 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to inform counsel of rulings on jury instructions prior to closing arguments violated Rule 30, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Most
  789 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Customs search of the package was lawful, and the appellant's subsequent incriminating statements were made after a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.
• United States v. Thanarat Suttiswad
  696 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was deficient because it failed to convey the requirement that the defendant must be aware of the high probability of the existence of the fact they are deliberately avoiding knowledge of.
• United States v. Watson
  599 F.2d 1149· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
• United States v. Tolliver
  780 F.2d 1177· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy and possession convictions for Scott and Onick, reversing their convictions. The court affirmed the convictions for Tolliver, Perrett, and Galvan-Venegas, finding probable cause for their arrests.
• United States v. Peterson
  768 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that the jury instructions, despite potential ambiguity, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Sanford
  658 F.2d 342· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 24×
  The court's majority unnecessarily decided the issue of reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, which was not required for affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Agee
  597 F.2d 350· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to improper references to his silence at the time of arrest and the trial court's prejudicial admonition regarding his right to remain silent.
• United States v. Magdaleno Hermosillo-Nanez
  545 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find predisposition, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not cause prejudice.
• United States v. Grummel
  542 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the heroin parcel should not be suppressed, the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, and heroin was a controlled substance at the time of the offense.
• United States v. Jimenez
  496 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for conspiracy and related offenses, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or evidence.
• United States v. Super
  492 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government fulfilled its obligation by identifying the informant and stating his unavailability, and that evidence of a subsequent drug transaction was admissible to prove conspiracy.
• United States v. Barrera
  486 F.2d 333· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict all appellants of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that various trial errors claimed were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Jackson
  533 F.2d 314· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional due to lack of probable cause, and the subsequent warrantless search of her hotel room and suitcase was also illegal.
• United States v. Marquez
  941 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the twenty-year term of supervised release was improperly imposed and must be reconsidered in light of the Sentencing Guidelines, which mandate a term between three and five years. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
• United States v. Sonnie Davis
  932 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions for heroin possession and witness tampering, finding no Fourth Amendment violations and sufficient evidence. It reversed the sentence for Kevin Davis, finding the district court erred in not applying the career offender guideline.
• United States v. Calixtro Torres-Rodriguez
  930 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for substitute counsel without inquiry, warranting reversal of the conviction. It also held that the denial of a continuance due to a superseding indictment prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal
• United States v. Guerra-Marez
  928 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that wiretap evidence was admissible, a variance between the indictment and evidence did not prejudice substantial rights, and prosecutorial explanations for jury strikes were adequate. However, the evidence was insufficient to support Wenseslada Reyes-Moya's consp
• United States v. Pietro Tussa
  816 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony from a confidential informant was prejudicial error for Patiwana and Zummo, requiring reversal, but harmless error for Amato and Tussa. The court also found sufficient evidence and probable cause for Amato and Tussa's convict
• United States v. Ortiz
  742 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's ten-year sentence for distribution of heroin and possession with intent to distribute, considering parole eligibility, was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. Agha Kaleem Ullah Khan
  728 F.2d 676· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance to secure a codefendant's testimony, as the defendant failed to show the codefendant would testify and the Fifth Amendment privilege could still be invoked.
• United States v. Clemons
  676 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of a second drug transaction, including the defendant's statement, was admissible to prove identity and was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Nembhard
  676 F.2d 193· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment and suppressing evidence, as there was no legitimate basis for dismissal and the initial denial of the suppression motion was correct. The court vacated the district court's order and remand
• United States v. Avance R. Allen
  629 F.2d 51· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest the appellant for drinking in public because he failed to conduct a minimal inquiry into whether drinking was permitted at the establishment.
• United States v. Carter
  576 F.2d 1061· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 22×
  A defendant can be convicted and sentenced for both possession with intent to distribute and distribution of narcotics when the acts involve discrete quantities and require different proofs, even if committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy.
• United States v. Herminio Cruz
  568 F.2d 781· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 22×
  Prosecution for conspiracy to distribute heroin after conviction for possession with intent to distribute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Hodge
  539 F.2d 898· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to submit the entrapment defense to the jury for Appellant Hodge, but affirmed Appellant Robertson's convictions.
• United States v. Marcela Flores
  540 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper under the 'hot pursuit' exception to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions for polygraph admission, discovery of informant's past testimony, or in its sentencing
• United States v. Regan
  525 F.2d 1151· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was valid because the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on collective knowledge and the exigencies of the situation.
• United States v. Myron DiNOVO and Janet DiNovo
  523 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, but the evidence was insufficient to prove Janet DiNovo's constructive possession of the heroin.
• United States v. Seijo
  514 F.2d 1357· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the undisclosed prior conviction of a key government witness, coupled with his false denial of it on the stand, deprived the appellants of a fair trial, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Leon
  487 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's failure to make reasonable efforts to produce an informant witness, who was crucial to the entrapment defense, required reversal of the convictions of the defendants relying on that defense. The court also held that exigent circumstances justi
• United States v. Wing Fook LUI
  941 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while admitting drug courier profile testimony was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction for minimal or minor participant status.
• United States v. Sanders
  928 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the "design to conceal or disguise" element required for money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) for two car purchases.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez
  777 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, separate convictions for distribution and possession were appropriate, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the indictment was sufficient. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Simmons
  923 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of unredacted grand jury testimony during deliberations, while potentially a Sixth Amendment violation, was harmless error because the testimony was cumulative and the defendant's credibility was extensively attacked. The court also affirmed the
• United States v. Johnson
  911 F.2d 1394· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Marion Johnson, Marshall Johnson, and Willie Lee Dancy, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• United States v. Angelita Gotay
  844 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that post-arrest statements made after an ambiguous or clear request for counsel, without further clarification or waiver initiated by the defendant, should have been suppressed. The admission of these statements was not harmless error for the distribution counts.