Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Gatewood
  786 F.2d 821· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the search warrant was valid, and the exhibits were properly admitted.
• United States v. Sperling
  726 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose a tape recording did not warrant a new trial or hearing, as it was unlikely to have affected the verdict. Other claims of error were also found to be without merit.
• United States v. Lipscomb
  702 F.2d 1049· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that all felony convictions less than ten years old are at least somewhat probative of credibility, and the trial court has discretion to determine the extent of background information needed to balance probativeness against prejudice.
• United States v. Tunsil
  672 F.2d 879· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a prior drug deal, in admitting coconspirator hearsay after a proper hearing, or in denying the motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Carter
  592 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 20×
  A Drug Enforcement Administration agent may participate with customs inspectors in conducting a border search without violating constitutional or statutory law.
• United States v. Prince Page, Jr.
  580 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for distributing heroin, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute heroin.
• United States v. Conrado Gillie Carrillo and Ernest Pete Montoya
  565 F.2d 1323· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction of the passenger (Carrillo) for insufficient evidence of possession, while affirming the driver's conviction.
• United States v. Valdovinos
  558 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellants' participation in the conspiracy and their intent to distribute heroin, supporting their convictions.
• United States v. Dixon
  558 F.2d 919· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) creates a separate federal crime and that the search and seizure were lawful. The jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Boria
  518 F.2d 368· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to record Spanish testimony in Spanish and to compel the government to produce an informant, as the current translation system was constitutional and the government had not acted with sufficient pr
• United States v. Miles
  480 F.2d 1215· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in restricting the cross-examination of a government witness regarding pending charges and in allowing a rebuttal witness, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Lonnie Banks & Alexander Hepburn
  475 F.2d 1367· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding impeachment testimony and properly instructed the jury on entrapment, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Tebha
  770 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's consideration of an exhibit not admitted into evidence required a new trial, and that the district court erred in refusing to impose a mandatory special parole term.
• United States v. Webb
  623 F.2d 758· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the arresting agent had probable cause to arrest the suspect based on the totality of her suspicious actions and the discovery of illegal drugs, rendering the subsequent seizure of evidence admissible.
• United States v. Losing
  539 F.2d 1174· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of minimization of wiretap interceptions, but most other grounds for suppression did not require a hearing.
• United States v. Parker
  836 F.2d 1080· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for intent to distribute, the search warrant was valid, and the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or in conducting an in-chambers conference without the defendant.
• United States v. Gordon
  829 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
• United States v. DeJESUS
  806 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that co-conspirator hearsay statements were admissible against a defendant if independent evidence showed membership in the conspiracy, and that cumulative sentences could be imposed for simultaneous possession of different controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 8
• United States v. Foluso Akinseye
  802 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed because the jury found them predisposed to commit the crime, and that the pretrial waiver of joint representation was valid despite the court not conducting a further inquiry when one defendant testified.
• United States v. Sami Annabi and Nedam Annabi
  771 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 18×
  A plea agreement to dismiss charges in one district does not preclude prosecution for similar charges in another district unless the agreement explicitly states so.
• United States v. Simmons
  763 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act claim requires further findings by the district court regarding the reasonableness of the delay in processing the suppression motion, but affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the dismissal of the prosecutorial misconduct claim
• United States v. Camp
  723 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the wiretap authorization was valid because the Attorney General properly designated an Assistant Attorney General by job title, and the affidavit established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances test. However, the court remanded the case to
• United States v. Touchstone
  726 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting evidence of defendants' flight, or limiting cross-examination of a government witness.
• United States v. Concepcion Rubio
  709 F.2d 146· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were proper, the government's use of an informant did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal, and the defendants' post-arrest statements were admissible.
• United States v. Harrison
  667 F.2d 1158· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on a combination of factors, and the quantity of drugs seized was sufficient to infer intent to distribute.
• United States v. Marvalene Moody
  649 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the border search and seizure were valid, and the consideration of the appellant's non-cooperation in sentencing was permissible as an explanation, not an enhancement.
• United States v. Williams
  594 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Manoon Gulma
  563 F.2d 386· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the motel room was valid based on consent, the arrest and subsequent search of the vehicle were lawful, and any prejudice from the jury seeing unadmitted exhibits was cured by judicial admonitions.
• United States v. Homburg
  546 F.2d 1350· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority's decision impermissibly abridged the Fourth Amendment rights of the appellant.
• United States v. Smith
  533 F.2d 1077· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the marital privilege, both for confidential communications and for testimony against a spouse, does not apply in this case, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Montelongo
  507 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motions to quash the jury panel without allowing inquiry into prior jury service in narcotics cases and in consolidating cases without proper severance.
• United States v. Adcock
  487 F.2d 637· 6th Cir.· 1973-11-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence supported only a single conspiracy, thus defendants could not be sentenced on both conspiracy counts. However, evidence was sufficient to convict on other counts and sentencing was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Pitre
  960 F.2d 1112· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior act evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Vizcarra-Porras
  889 F.2d 1435· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
• United States v. Zayas
  876 F.2d 1057· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury empanelment was not a pretext to violate the Speedy Trial Act, any error regarding the Fifth Amendment was harmless, and the sentencing was correct.
• United States v. Ibukun O. Mayomi
  873 F.2d 1049· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the detention of the defendant's mail for a period of forty-eight hours over a weekend for a canine sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's identity and prior investigations was not an
• United States v. Detrich
  865 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding Dawood Nusraty's statement that he was getting married, as it was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's state of mind and was relevant to the defense.
• United States v. Wiseman
  814 F.2d 826· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the heroin, admitting the co-conspirator's statements, or admitting the introduction as an adoptive admission, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict.
• United States v. Grandison
  783 F.2d 1152· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike a juror, imposing consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances, admitting evidence of unexplained wealth, admitting a deceased witness's prior testimony, or denying a motion to
• United States v. Jones
  779 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the schoolyard statute applies even if the drug sale was to an adult, at night, and not directly involving school children, as long as it occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.
• United States v. Rhoda Ogberaha
  771 F.2d 655· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 16×
  Body cavity searches conducted at the border are permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband internally.
• United States v. Chaim Levy
  731 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a search incident to a lawful arrest is permissible, even if the arrest warrant was not obtained despite ample opportunity. However, evidence of a prior, distinct drug transaction, even if related, must be analyzed under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 40
• United States v. Ruigomez
  702 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a search conducted pursuant to voluntary consent is an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements, and that a search incident to a lawful arrest is also permissible.
• United States v. Renfro
  620 F.2d 569· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant waived any right to challenge the competency of a juror by expressly agreeing to proceed with the original panel. Federal prosecution after state dismissal was permissible under the Petite policy, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantle
• United States v. Nepomuceno Moreno-Nunez
  595 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a co-defendant's argument that another defendant's counsel's comment on his silence constituted a comment on his failure to testify was not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Candido Natal Riquelmy and Felix Lopez
  572 F.2d 947· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that appellees Candido Riquelmy and Felix Lopez lacked standing to challenge the search of Eddie Riquelmy's person because they had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched item and were not charged with a possessory offense after the government agreed
• United States v. Montgomery
  554 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for conspiracy with McGarrity, and the search of the airplane was legal due to corroborated informant information and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Martinez
  536 F.2d 1107· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that admitting statements from a withdrawn guilty plea for impeachment purposes was error, but harmless error given the overall evidence.
• United States v. Garcia
  526 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the sentencing procedure for prior convictions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 851(b) was not substantially complied with, requiring vacation of the sentence.
• United States v. White
  493 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a confession obtained during custody is admissible if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights, and that the corroboration standard for confessions in federal courts does not require independent proof of the corpus delicti.