Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Everidge
  488 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator during the course of the conspiracy are admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, even if the coconspirator does not testify, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Vasquez
  468 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a conviction and sentence on separate counts for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, arising from a single transaction, can be affirmed under the concurrent sentence doctrine when concurrent sentences are imposed and no prejudice r
• United States v. Taylor
  857 F.2d 210· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the investigative stop of the automobile, the show of force, the pat-down search, and the subsequent search of the automobile were all constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Velleeta Jackson
  778 F.2d 933· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-03 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the entry into Jackson's bedroom was a lawful security check and her subsequent consent to search was voluntary, and that collateral estoppel did not bar her retrial on possession charges after an acquittal on conspiracy charges.
• United States v. Jones
  641 F.2d 425· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the January 21, 1978 search of Sarah Howard's residence was illegal because the police lacked probable cause to believe Earl Jones was present and Sarah Howard's consent was not freely and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  943 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's false statement about prior convictions to a probation officer constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and that the admission of a post-arrest statement regarding drug sales, while error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Polanco-Reynoso
  924 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an upward departure in sentencing is warranted when a defendant commits an offense while on release for another serious offense, as it significantly under-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history.
• United States v. Ibanez
  924 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in calculating the defendant's Criminal History Category.
• United States v. Olawale Olamrewaju Oguns
  921 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence seized from the defendant's apartment was admissible because his consent was voluntary and any taint from a prior illegal entry was dissipated, and that a phone call was admissible as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence.
• United States v. Benitez
  920 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Oliyinka Sobamowo
  892 F.2d 90· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that wiretap evidence was admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conspiracy convictions, and various procedural and instructional errors were either harmless or did not occur.
• United States v. Iglesias
  881 F.2d 1519· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress cash seized from a third party's residence, nor in denying the defendant's motion to compel production of internal government laboratory documents.
• United States v. Mora
  876 F.2d 76· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for importing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and that separate punishments for these offenses were permissible.
• United States v. Yaffa Levy
  865 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence to admit co-conspirator statements under the Ammar standard and that the use of false passports and identities was admissible. However, sentences for two defendants were vacated due to potential sentencing misunderstan
• United States v. Fernandez-Angulo
  863 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 14×
  Concurrent sentences for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute are permissible when the acts are not part of a single, immediate transaction. However, the case must be remanded for the district court to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(
• United States v. Alvarez
  816 F.2d 813· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the literal application of Local Rule 204.2, limiting outside counsel to one pro hac vice appearance per year, is unconstitutional when it denies a criminal defendant their Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice without a showing that such choice would int
• United States v. McBRIDE
  801 F.2d 1045· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 14×
  An anonymous tip, corroborated by police verification of vehicle details and location, can provide sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Kirk
  723 F.2d 1379· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court vacated the conspiracy conviction and sentence due to double jeopardy, finding it a lesser included offense of continuing criminal enterprise. The court applied the concurrent sentence rule to avoid deciding whether cumulative sentences for CCE and its predicate offense
• United States v. Astorga-Torres
  682 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the entry into the appellants' cabin was lawful, justifying the seizure of evidence in plain view, and that prior drug sales and statements by a co-conspirator were admissible. However, the jury instruction on constructive possession for Count II was erroneous
• United States v. Nayar
  611 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding entrapment, the admission of oral statements, and the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy were without merit.
• United States v. Nedim Bilir
  592 F.2d 735· 4th Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The search of the defendants at the railroad station was not a border search or its functional equivalent, and the officers lacked reasonable cause to believe the defendants were carrying illegally imported heroin.
• United States v. Blalock
  578 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest of Blalock in his business premises was lawful due to probable cause, and the seizure of the black metal box containing heroin was justified under the plain view doctrine.
• United States v. Henciar
  568 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted the issue of entrapment to the jury and that evidence of prior drug sales was admissible to show intent and predisposition. However, one of two concurrent sentences imposed on Albert must be vacated.
• United States v. Ricco
  566 F.2d 433· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that using suppressed wiretap recordings to refresh a witness's recollection before trial does not violate the statutory prohibition on disclosure or use of such recordings.
• United States v. Costey
  554 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.
• United States v. Heverto Rene Ramirez
  533 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant, as the scope of cross-examination is within the trial court's discretion and the defendant was not denied the opportunity to p
• United States v. Mathis
  535 F.2d 1303· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions adequately conveyed the defense theory and that denying a request for separate jury polls for multiple defendants was not error in this uncomplicated case.
• United States v. Alejandro
  527 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that probable cause existed for the arrests, that severance was not required, and that evidence of a prior conviction was admissible for limited purposes.
• United States v. Thompson
  495 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 14×
  Evidence seized from an apartment, including documents and keys, was properly admitted because the search warrants were supported by probable cause and the seized items fell within the scope of the warrants as instrumentalities and records of a narcotics business.
• United States v. Vigo
  487 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The majority opinion reversed the suppression of evidence seized from defendant Pagan's purse but affirmed the suppression of defendant Vigo's oral statements.
• United States v. Brown
  663 F.2d 229· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 13×
  The en banc court held that the defendant's trial counsel's decision not to file a motion to suppress was a reasonable, informed judgment, thus not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel or 'cause shown' to overcome the waiver under Rule 12(f).
• United States v. Davis
  486 F.2d 725· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-11 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence from a portion of his trial does not necessitate a mistrial if the trial court, in its discretion, determines it is appropriate to proceed.
• United States v. Hasna Sayed Dahdah
  864 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court erred in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's redirect examination, this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Santillanes
  848 F.2d 1103· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent searches violated the appellant's Fourth Amendment rights because they were not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
• United States v. Battle
  859 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that any error in admitting certain testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Cheung
  836 F.2d 729· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the bag contained an illicit substance, even if he didn't know it was specifically heroin.
• United States v. Udom Walitwarangkul
  808 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 12×
  Possession of a locked container with contraband, combined with other circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient for a jury to infer knowing possession.
• United States v. Miller
  799 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions based on outrageous government conduct and in admitting co-conspirator statements, and that the defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Yates
  734 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to challenge the severance of charges by failing to properly object and renew his motion, and that any error was harmless.
• United States v. Suchart Chanya
  700 F.2d 192· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court's inquiry into the numerical division of a jury during deliberations constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether coercion is shown.
• United States v. Donelson
  695 F.2d 583· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Youth Corrections Act permits sentences longer than those available to adult offenders for the same crime, and that the Federal Magistrates Act of 1979 did not alter this interpretation. It also held that the disparity in sentencing between magistr
• United States v. White
  660 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into White's apartment was permissible due to consent obtained by ruse as part of an ongoing investigation, and that the seized currency was lawfully seized as potential proceeds of criminal activity. The convictions for possession with i
• United States v. Schoor
  597 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the airport search was a lawful border search, the seized documents were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and venue was proper.
• United States v. Valenzuela
  584 F.2d 374· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based on the government's internal Petite policy is not an appealable interlocutory order, as the policy does not confer an enforceable right on the defendant and the order is not a final decision.
• United States v. Humphrey
  549 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the heroin was admissible evidence because it was discovered after the defendant abandoned the package, and the airline employee's actions were not state-sponsored. The court also held the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute.
• United States v. Harper
  550 F.2d 610· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial entry and subsequent search of the residence were lawful, and the evidence seized was admissible. The court also found the affidavit supporting the search warrant sufficient.
• United States v. Leong
  536 F.2d 993· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and that venue was properly established for the substantive offense. The court also rejected claims of double jeopardy and prejudice from other defendants' claims.
• United States v. Smith
  520 F.2d 1245· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statement made after the conspiracy's termination, which was exculpatory and implicated the appellant, was inadmissible hearsay.
• United States v. LUE
  498 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not a denial of due process and that entrapment was not established as a matter of law.
• United States v. Trujillo
  497 F.2d 408· 10th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a lesser included offense instruction for simple possession was not warranted because the mental state required for possession and distribution under the relevant statutes is the same.