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

• Lewis v. State
  827 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-10-11 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Debra Lewis appealed her convictions for possession of cannabis with intent to sell and trafficking in cannabis, challenging them on double jeopardy grounds and arguing her sentence was illegal under an allegedly unconstitutional statute. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirm
• United States v. Kleinebreil
  966 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing due to double-counting of offense level adjustments.
• United States v. Harry
  960 F.2d 51· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the defendant's offense level upward for his role as an organizer in the drug conspiracy.
• United States v. Salatil Pruneda-Gonzalez
  953 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marihuana, and that the defense of entrapment was not established as a matter of law.
• United States v. Juarez-Fierro
  935 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that jeopardy had not attached when the first indictment was dismissed, and that the defendants' speedy trial rights were not violated. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. COX
  934 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
• United States v. Hatch
  931 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the marijuana plants were located in an open field, not within the curtilage of the defendant's home, and thus were not protected by the Fourth Amendment from a warrantless search and seizure.
• United States v. Gibson
  928 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, and that the giving of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was harmless error. The court al
• United States v. Rodriguez-Mireles
  896 F.2d 890· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence, including tracking, footprints, and proximity to drugs, was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import and possess marijuana with intent to distribute, as well as for importation and possession with intent to distribute
• United States v. Arnoldo Villasenor and Fidel Villasenor
  894 F.2d 1422· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Arnoldo's conviction for possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, but insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for both Arnoldo and Fidel.
• The United States v. DiLORETO
  888 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 16×
  The court's prior decisions, particularly Swinehart, may have established a per se reversal rule for certain prosecutorial misconduct, but this conflicts with Supreme Court precedent requiring a prejudice analysis.
• United States v. Bonifacio Muniz-Ortega
  858 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion for the border patrol agents to stop and search the appellant's truck, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Dozier
  844 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the Franks hearing but did err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under an overly broad warrant.
• United States v. Serna
  799 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidentiary rulings were proper and sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Dekle
  768 F.2d 1257· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and evidence, joinder of defendants was proper, and various evidentiary rulings were either harmless error or not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Silbert Mills
  760 F.2d 1116· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the deposition of an unarrested co-defendant and that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warranted a remand for further proceedings.
• United States v. Cisneros-Mireles
  739 F.2d 1000· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure and search of the Buick was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, based on probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Doty
  714 F.2d 761· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the affidavits provided a substantial basis for probable cause to issue the search warrant, and the destruction of the marijuana plants did not violate due process.
• United States v. Clark
  664 F.2d 1174· 11th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's stop and boarding of the vessel were lawful, and the discovery of marijuana in plain view provided probable cause for further search. The court also held that Miranda warnings were not required during the initial questioning and that a minor
• United States v. Roldan Guillen-Linares
  643 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the decision, finding that the Coast Guard's boarding and subsequent discovery of marijuana did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Hurt v. State
  388 So. 2d 281· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-09-10 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Six appellants were convicted of possessing more than 100 pounds of cannabis with intent to sell following a nolo contendere plea. The court reversed their convictions, finding that officers had no legal right to make a warrantless entry into the warehouse where the cannabis was
• United States v. Jackstadt
  617 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not fatally defective and provided sufficient probable cause for its issuance.
• United States v. Allen
  613 F.2d 1248· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The grant of a new trial in a § 2255 proceeding is a final, appealable order, and the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant conspired with at least one other person.
• United States v. Petty
  601 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and that the subsequent search of the trunk was justified by both consent and probable cause.
• United States v. Meier
  602 F.2d 253· 10th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The warrantless search of a closed backpack found within an automobile, even with probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• Davis v. Davis
  585 F.2d 1226· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 16×
  Sentences within statutory limits for drug offenses are not cruel and unusual punishment unless there are extraordinary circumstances demonstrating gross disproportionality to the crime.
• United States v. Basile
  569 F.2d 1053· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Montes-Zarate
  552 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's incriminating statements were admissible, the delay in presentment was not prejudicial, and the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Count IV.
• United States v. Muller
  550 F.2d 1375· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting codefendant statements, or finding sufficient evidence for conviction.
• United States v. McCRARY
  543 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was constitutional because the odor of marijuana provided probable cause.
• United States v. Valentine Kalie
  538 F.2d 1201· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plain view of marijuana debris in the truck bed provided probable cause for the search, and the stop at the permanent checkpoint was permissible.
• United States v. Dimas
  537 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search and seizure were constitutional and the defendant was properly identified.
• United States v. Mitchell
  525 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-16 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Vera
  514 F.2d 102· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by not adequately determining the defendants understood the nature of the charges and that there was a factual basis for their guilty pleas.
• United States v. Diemler
  498 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate a valid border search under pre-Almeida-Sanchez standards, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Burden
  497 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and admitting expert testimony.
• United States v. Nocar
  497 F.2d 719· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' prosecution was valid despite the timing of the controlled substance schedule republication, and that probable cause existed for the warrantless search of their automobile.
• United States v. Cooks
  493 F.2d 668· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the premises was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. McKIM
  487 F.2d 305· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a search conducted by a roving Border Patrol without probable cause or consent, at a location not at the border or its functional equivalent, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Chavez
  482 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause because it failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the informant's basis of knowledge.
• United States v. Diamond
  471 F.2d 771· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the customs agents had a founded suspicion to stop the vehicle and probable cause to search it based on the odor of marijuana and appellant's suspicious behavior.
• United States v. Alvarez
  469 F.2d 1065· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in withholding the informant's identity and that the jury instructions were not a basis for reversal.
• Williams v. State
  959 So. 2d 790· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-06-22 ·cited 15×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Antonio Williams appeals his convictions for multiple offenses arising from his November 2004 encounter with Lake Wales police officers. The court affirmed his convictions for resisting with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and drug-related offenses, but reversed h
• United States v. Primitivo Cortez
  935 F.2d 135· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, that the Allen charge was properly given, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. However, it found that admitting officers' opinion testimony on a witness's truthfulness
• United States v. Young
  906 F.2d 615· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence to establish a RICO enterprise and convict appellants of substantive narcotics offenses, and rejecting claims of pre-indictment delay prejudice and abuse of discretion in refusing jury testimony.
• United States v. Lewellyn Henry and Winston Franklin McNair
  849 F.2d 1534· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellants knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute and conspired to do so.
• United States v. Gomez-Gomez
  822 F.2d 1008· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 15×
  A trial court has broad discretion to reject a guilty plea, even after initial acceptance, if it finds no factual basis or if the defendant protests innocence.
• United States v. Ruz-Salazar
  764 F.2d 1433· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, while a constitutional violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Rojas
  731 F.2d 707· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the search was lawful as a border search and that the prosecutor's comments, while potentially improper, did not prejudice the defendants' substantive rights, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Berrong
  712 F.2d 1370· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the marijuana field, and thus the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment.