Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Killebrew
  594 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, hearsay evidence was admissible at the suppression hearing, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• United States v. Padilla
  525 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the voir dire question regarding racial prejudice was adequate, the jury instructions were sufficient, and the evidence supported the convictions.
• Thomas v. United States
  501 F.2d 1169· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the delay in trial, the search and seizure were lawful, and the evidence admitted was relevant to the intent to distribute.
• United States v. Ballard Williams
  499 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1974-05-28 ·cited 8×
  A sentencing court may consider information in a presentence report, even if disputed, provided it is not wholly unsubstantiated and difficult to rebut, and may consider sentences imposed on codefendants.
• United States v. Chavarria
  493 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the detention of the appellant at the border was based on reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent identification by a co-conspirator admissible evidence.
• United States v. Johnson
  484 F.2d 165· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury was justified in rejecting the entrapment defense and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and distribution of heroin.
• United States v. Baca
  480 F.2d 199· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, and the officers were justified in searching the defendant's person, leading to the seizure of contraband.
• United States v. Gonzales
  461 F.2d 1000· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-06 ·cited 8×
  A defendant cannot claim entrapment based on a coconspirator's interactions with an informant when the defendant had no direct contact with the informant.
• United States v. Villella
  459 F.2d 1028· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a continuance was within the trial court's discretion and that the legality of the arrest was irrelevant to the conviction.
• United States v. LAU Tung LAM
  714 F.2d 209· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the government's actions in facilitating the defendant's importation of heroin into the United States did not improperly manufacture federal jurisdiction, and thus the indictment should not be dismissed.
• United States v. Akinola
  985 F.2d 1105· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support findings of constructive possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, and that the prosecutor's comment and jury instructions were not reversible error.
• United States v. Innocent U. Uwaeme
  975 F.2d 1016· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a drug quantity estimate used for sentencing need not meet rigorous statistical accuracy standards, only sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Folonsho Samuel Ojebode
  957 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute heroin. However, the court reversed and remanded the importation conviction due
• United States v. Valencia
  957 F.2d 1189· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to play a Spanish language tape recording to the jury, in omitting a lesser-included offense instruction, or in admitting hearsay statements offered to explain the DEA's conduct.
• United States v. Soto-Alvarez
  958 F.2d 473· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial and the conviction, finding no prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violation during resentencing, or double jeopardy violation.
• United States v. Goody Moore
  949 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that presentence reports of accomplice witnesses are not discoverable under the Jencks Act, and disclosure to a defendant requires a showing of compelling need, which was not met here.
• United States v. Puzzo
  928 F.2d 1356· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that while some of the defendant's testimony was improperly excluded as hearsay, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Isiaka Oduloye
  924 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the probation officer's undisclosed job offer from the FBI.
• United States v. Dominguez-Mestas
  929 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 545, as duress does not negate the knowledge element of the offense.
• United States v. Martinez
  877 F.2d 1480· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Muzamal Chaudhry
  850 F.2d 851· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of constitutional violations and discovery infractions were without merit, as they were either factually unsupported by the record, procedurally defaulted, or did not demonstrate prejudice.
• United States v. Silva
  846 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed as a matter of law and that inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction. Substantial evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Vasilios Gatzonis
  805 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while some jury instruction language should be avoided, the instructions given, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury that each element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Slupe
  692 F.2d 1183· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and subsequent searches were supported by probable cause and voluntary consent, respectively, and thus, the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States v. Baca
  687 F.2d 1356· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the destruction of evidence by state authorities prior to federal indictment does not preclude federal prosecution, and the defendant was not denied a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Washington
  677 F.2d 394· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership and interest in a suitcase justified its search by law enforcement officers, and that a prosecutor's comments on evidence were permissible inferences.
• United States v. Franco
  638 F.2d 1206· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, and therefore the fruits of the arrest are admissible.
• United States v. Purvis
  632 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the customs officers had sufficient 'real suspicion' to conduct a strip search and that the evidence obtained was legally obtained.
• United States v. McFADDEN
  630 F.2d 963· 3d Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error by proceeding to trial with the defendant representing himself, with standby counsel, after the defendant discharged his second appointed attorney and insisted on self-representation.
• United States v. Garrett
  627 F.2d 14· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the arrest was not based on probable cause because the informant's tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and was not adequately corroborated by independent investigation.
• United States v. Anguloa
  598 F.2d 1182· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's ex parte substitution of interpreters was improper, it constituted harmless error as the defendant was not prejudiced. The chain of custody for the heroin was also adequately established.
• United States v. Miranda
  556 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss or suppress testimony due to untimely compliance with pretrial orders, in failing to suppress evidence secured in violation of the Fourth Amendment, or in failing to grant a mistrial.
• United States v. Wardell L. Smith, Jr.
  503 F.2d 1037· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a strip search, as probable cause existed due to corroborated informant information and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Nevarez-Alcantar
  495 F.2d 678· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-23 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Miller
  480 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the airport search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Johnson
  469 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant waived the right to challenge the legality of a body cavity search by failing to raise the issue in the trial court and that the totality of circumstances justified the search.
• United States v. Milner
  962 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge's explicit explanation to the jury venire of the defendant's custody status and the reasons for security measures, including a comparison to Manuel Noriega, created an unacceptable risk of prejudice and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Vargas
  97 F.4th 1277· 11th Cir.· 2024-04-03 ·cited 4×
  Victor Vargas appealed his drug trafficking convictions, claiming the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by waiting thirty-five months between his indictment in September 2018 and his arrest in August 2021. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district c
• United States v. Cruz
  981 F.2d 613· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for the district court to modify its sentencing memorandum and comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D).
• United States v. Carluin Sanchez
  969 F.2d 1409· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 4×
  A district court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial based solely on minor inconsistencies in police testimony, which are credibility issues for the jury, or by rejecting witness testimony based on a jury's decision in a different case.
• United States v. Egbuniwe
  969 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for just cause and proceeding with an eleven-person jury, nor did it err in calculating the defendant's sentence based on the total amount of heroin involved in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Ihegworo
  959 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 4×
  An upward departure from the sentencing guideline range is permissible under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 when the victim of the death is not the direct victim of the offense of conviction, as long as there is a sufficient nexus between the death and the offense.
• United States v. Chukwubike
  956 F.2d 209· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-06 ·cited 4×
  Doctors acting to save a drug courier's life are not government agents conducting a Fourth Amendment search, even if their actions produce evidence.
• United States v. Mateo
  950 F.2d 44· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing when his appointed attorney remained present but offered no advocacy, and the defendant repeatedly indicated he was unrepresented.
• United States v. Gutberlet
  939 F.2d 643· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, that the defendant lacked standing to suppress evidence seized from a co-arrestee, and that the jury instructions adequately covered the defense's theory.
• United States v. Cronan
  937 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 4×
  A premature notice of appeal filed before sentencing in a criminal case is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date the sentence is entered as a judgment. The court also held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.
• United States v. Leung
  929 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arrests, searches, and seizures were constitutional and that the admission of certain hearsay testimony was harmless error.
• United States v. Andrews
  919 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of criminal profile evidence was not plain error and hearsay testimony was harmless error, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Sharpe Pitts, Jr.
  918 F.2d 197· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a missing witness instruction and argument are improper when the absent witness could only support the defendant's version of events by incriminating themselves.
• United States v. Hughes
  864 F.2d 78· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection, requiring the government to provide a neutral explanation for its peremptory challenges.