Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute

918 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 108 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Arredondo-Hernandez
  574 F.2d 1312· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the discovery of an unusually large structural discrepancy indicative of a secret compartment, observed by a trained border patrol agent at a permanent immigration checkpoint, establishes probable cause for a search.
• United States v. Cheshire
  569 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the owner's consent to attach an electronic beeper to a leased airplane was sufficient to fall under the third-party consent exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. George
  567 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Border Patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle, making the subsequent seizure of marijuana illegal.
• United States v. Emens
  565 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 20×
  A district court has jurisdiction to reconsider its prior pretrial order dismissing an indictment during the appeal time, and should address the merits of such a motion.
• United States v. Daniels
  549 F.2d 665· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was legally seized and sufficient to support the convictions for importing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. MacIas
  546 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the stops and searches of both vehicles were constitutionally permissible, either based on probable cause derived from suspicious circumstances and evasive actions or reasonable suspicion for roving patrols.
• United States v. Lincoln
  494 F.2d 833· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search of the Ford Galaxie constituted a valid extended border search, the stop and seizure of the driver's license were justified by founded suspicion and probable cause, compelled handwriting exemplars did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, the
• United States v. Nunez
  483 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and substantive counts of importing and possessing marijuana, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  917 F.2d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendants' Batson objection was untimely and that the exclusion of evidence regarding alleged entrapment and lost tapes did not violate their rights.
• United States v. Carreon
  872 F.2d 1436· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the customs inspector had reasonable suspicion to conduct a more intrusive search of the vehicle, including drilling into a hidden compartment, based on the totality of the circumstances.
• United States v. Abdon Delgadillo-Velasquez
  856 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the initial seizure constituted an arrest without probable cause, and subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal arrest, requiring suppression of all evidence.
• United States v. Patacchia
  602 F.2d 218· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances did not establish probable cause for the search of the vehicle's trunk, nor was consent to search given.
• United States v. Curtis
  965 F.2d 610· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to suppress evidence, disclose an informant's identity, or in applying sentence enhancements, and that the federal forfeiture statute supersedes state homestead exemptions.
• United States v. Pace
  955 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a barn physically separate from a home, located in an open field, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's curtilage doctrine, and that the area surrounding such a barn is not protected as a 'business curtilage.' The court also found that the district court'
• United States v. Adan Garcia
  925 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the weight of damp marijuana, including moisture, is the correct basis for sentencing, and a firearm found in the home during drug offenses justifies an upward sentence adjustment.
• United States v. Bassem M. Sharif
  893 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation.
• United States v. Posner
  865 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent marijuana transactions was admissible to show predisposition for cocaine charges, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. However, the imposition of a supervised release term was improper.
• United States v. Denney
  771 F.2d 318· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the investigatory detention and protective search of the vehicle's passenger compartment were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent consent to search the seized box was voluntary.
• United States v. Corral-Villavicencio
  753 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the search was not a valid extended border search, the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and the subsequent search was based on probable cause.
• United States v. Ayres
  725 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agents had probable cause to arrest Ayres, and his subsequent statements at the police station were admissible despite the suppression of earlier statements made at the breachway. The court also found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or jury view
• United States v. Gordon
  712 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the stop of the truck was constitutional based on reasonable suspicion, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, but insufficient for the conspiracy conviction.
• Smith v. State
  438 So. 2d 10· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-05-25 ·cited 18×
  Smith and Wagner appealed their convictions for possession of over 100 pounds of marijuana with firearms, challenging the denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained through wiretap intercepts. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the first wiretap valid and rejec
• United States v. Knight
  705 F.2d 432· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States had jurisdiction over the stateless vessel and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for drug offenses.
• United States v. Balliviero
  708 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or excluding evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Sockwell
  699 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and substantive drug offenses, and that the admission of coconspirator guilty pleas and a brief mention of plea bargaining did not prejudice the defendant, nor did the separate conspiracy
• United States v. Alvarez
  696 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the failure to conduct a Rule 44(c) inquiry is not reversible error unless an actual conflict of interest is demonstrated. The court also held that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy to admit coconspirator statements and sup
• United States v. Walker
  696 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted a portion of an unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), and any error in excluding other portions was harmless.
• United States v. Alvaro Chaparro-Almeida
  679 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's random search of an American vessel on the high seas was valid, and the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Rodarte
  596 F.2d 141· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of evidence of a prior foreign conviction
• United States v. Elvia Escamilla Moreno
  579 F.2d 371· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search was valid because the Sarita checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border, and the driver had sufficient dominion and control to possess the marijuana.
• United States v. Rankin
  572 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is affirmed, rejecting all his contentions on appeal.
• United States v. Erasmo Olivarez Flores
  564 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 18×
  Evidence of flight alone is insufficient to support a conviction for knowingly possessing marijuana with intent to distribute when the defendant was a passenger and there is no other evidence of knowledge.
• United States v. Garza
  544 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the stop and search of the appellant's vehicle were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Millar
  543 F.2d 1280· 10th Cir.· 1976-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a search of a U-Haul trailer, conducted pursuant to a state-issued warrant from a non-court of record, was lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the initial stop was for a routine traffic check.
• United States v. Abel Torres-Urena
  513 F.2d 540· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the officer lacked a founded suspicion to justify stopping the appellant's vehicle, and therefore the evidence found was inadmissible.
• 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. Bergera
  512 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly interprets the scope of review for magistrate recommendations, creating an illogical distinction between accepting and rejecting them.
• United States v. McDEVITT
  508 F.2d 8· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendant's truck was arbitrary and lacked reasonable suspicion, rendering the subsequent search and arrest illegal. The court reversed the conviction due to the tainted evidence.
• United States v. Estanislao Merla
  493 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the motion to suppress was correctly denied because the search occurred before the Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez, which is applied prospectively.
• United States v. Morales
  987 F.3d 966· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that even if the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause, the evidence seized is admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officers reasonably relied on the warrant issued by a neutral magistrate.
• Grant v. State
  864 So. 2d 503· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-01-07 ·cited 17×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a requested jury instruction for a lesser included offense, which was not properly a lesser included offense, could not be decided on direct appeal because prejudice was not apparent from the
• United States v. Jones
  933 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing enhancements, or constitutional challenges.
• United States v. Morales
  854 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a prior state felony conviction, even if probated and no longer subject to direct appeal, is considered 'final' for federal sentence enhancement purposes under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
• United States v. Strayer
  846 F.2d 1262· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and that the defendant's challenge to the presentence report was moot because the court stated it would not consider the disputed information.
• United States v. Janis
  831 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the government's conduct in approaching the defendant's home and purchasing drugs did not constitute a search requiring probable cause, and that the late disclosure of certain evidence did not violate Brady v. Maryland.
• United States v. Padilla-Martinez
  762 F.2d 942· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in disqualifying retained counsel due to potential conflicts of interest that the defendants could not knowingly and intelligently waive.
• United States v. Garcia
  616 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the border patrol's stopping, questioning, and referral of the appellant to a secondary inspection site at a permanent checkpoint were constitutional, and the subsequent search of the truck was justified by the plain view doctrine and probable cause.
• United States v. Ballesteros-Cordova
  586 F.2d 1321· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled because the defendant was a fugitive from justice, and that the identification evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ortiz-Barraza v. United States
  512 F.2d 1176· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a tribal police officer had the authority to investigate on-reservation violations of state and federal law by non-Indians, and that the search conducted was reasonable under the circumstances.
• Knight v. State
  107 So. 3d 449· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-01-18 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Knight appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Fifth District affirms the conviction but certifies conflict with other districts regarding the application of Florida's special circumstan