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. Edmonds
  611 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because they lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, and the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.
• United States v. Luddington
  589 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Sierra Blanca checkpoint remains the functional equivalent of the border, authorizing searches without probable cause.
• United States v. Flores
  531 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the Cadillac was a permissible extended border search.
• United States v. Hernandez
  484 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence, viewed favorably to the government, was sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Pinedo-Montoya
  966 F.2d 591· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the referral to secondary inspection was based on reasonable suspicion and that the moisture content of marijuana should be included in its weight for sentencing purposes.
• United States v. Filemon Sotelo Sanchez
  961 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and telephone use, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and variance. It also declined to review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim not raised belo
• United States v. Adan Chavez
  947 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that the district court's upward adjustment of Campos's sentence for being an organizer was not clearly err
• United States v. Desmarais
  938 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction and forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in bifurcating the trials, admitting evidence of a prior suspicious package, denying motions for acquittal, or in its jury instructions regarding forfeiture.
• United States v. Belanger
  936 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's prior conviction was constitutionally valid and properly classified as a felony for career offender sentencing, but vacated the sentence due to a miscalculation of the statutory maximum penalty.
• United States v. Ochoa-Fabian
  935 F.2d 1139· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in giving a deliberate ignorance jury instruction and in declining to grant a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Melton
  930 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's transmittal letter promising a recommendation for downward departure, when read with the plea agreement, created an obligation that could be breached, and that the record was inadequate to determine if such a breach occurred or if sentencing d
• United States v. Madkour
  930 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 14×
  A jury finding of drug quantity is not required for the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), and such quantity is determined by the judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Pollack
  895 F.2d 686· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the stop of Pollack's vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion, the subsequent search of the trunk was lawful as incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause, and the delay in conducting the search was justified by safety concerns and diligent investiga
• United States v. Hilton
  894 F.2d 485· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the quantity of marijuana involved, supporting the penalty enhancement.
• United States v. Lee Hitow (88-1970)
  889 F.2d 1573· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict appellants of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in its rulings on prosecutorial remarks and sentencing.
• United States v. Kerr
  876 F.2d 1440· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including corroborated anonymous tips and independent police observations, provided probable cause for the search warrant, but vacated the sentence due to a procedural due process violation at sentencing.
• United States v. Tersea Adela Ashby
  864 F.2d 690· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress, the admission of documents as circumstantial evidence, the jury instructions, and the handling of a juror conversation were not erroneous, and the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Kohler
  836 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's motor home, and the subsequent smell of marihuana justified a search.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  835 F.2d 1090· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence because reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and consent justified the search, and the trial judge's questioning did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Quinton M. Gornto, III
  792 F.2d 1028· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony barred by collateral estoppel was not harmless error, requiring reversal. However, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the retrial on conspiracy counts.
• United States v. Harrell
  788 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that tape-recorded statements of a co-defendant were admissible under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule, and that the trial court did not err in admitting enhanced tapes, transcripts, or in its discovery rulings.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Franke Hoheb
  777 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that inconsistent jury verdicts in a criminal trial, even in a conspiracy case, may be upheld based on Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. ENG
  753 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the marijuana patch and processing area were 'open fields' and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and that the legality of the search by state troopers should be judged by federal standards. The court also held that there was suf
• United States v. Hill
  730 F.2d 1163· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless search of Hill's suitcase was an unreasonable violation of the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of his conviction, but affirmed Frazier's conviction as the evidence against him was obtained lawfully and the suitcase evidence was not prejudi
• United States v. Henriquez
  731 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the issue of the vessel's statelessness was preserved for appeal and remanded for further findings on that issue and the government's burden of proof. Regarding the destroyed tapes, the court found no prejudice to the defendants but issued a directive to preve
• United States v. Perate
  719 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the initial stop of the limousine was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion to dismiss one count of the indictment. However, the court also held tha
• United States v. Hall
  716 F.2d 826· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the truck and that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and his spontaneous statements were admissible.
• United States v. Ward
  703 F.2d 1058· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the affidavit established probable cause for the search warrant, and the use of a night scope did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the evidence against Rose was insufficient for her convictions.
• United States v. Rose
  669 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that radio transmissions broadcast on the ham radio frequency, lacking a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, are not protected by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress
• United States v. Schmidt
  662 F.2d 498· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-29 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Mastrangelo
  662 F.2d 946· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires reversal because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity and viable alternatives existed.
• 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. Salinas
  611 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Border Patrol checkpoint seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas, was the functional equivalent of the border, making the warrantless search of the defendant's suitcases valid.
• United States v. Till
  609 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding statements made by an unavailable informant was reversible error, as the testimony was relevant to the entrapment defense and not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
• United States v. Santia-Manriquez
  603 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the marijuana was the fruit of an illegal stop and that the abandonment of the evidence was not voluntary, thus affirming the suppression.
• United States v. Ballard
  600 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the vehicle's proximity to the border, its suspicious activity, and the occupants' condition, provided customs officers with reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and probable cause to search it.
• United States v. Eliseo A. Resendez
  578 F.2d 1041· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the investigatory stop of the Cadillac was not based on reasonable suspicion because the government agents lacked specific articulable facts to warrant suspicion of customs law violations.
• United States v. Saenz
  578 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle and probable cause to search it, leading to the affirmance of the conviction.
• United States v. Doyle Kent Ogden
  572 F.2d 501· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful based on probable cause from the odor of marijuana, and that the defendant's post-arrest statements were voluntary and admissible.
• United States v. Stevie
  578 F.2d 204· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The majority erred in holding that a warrantless search of the suitcase was justified.
• United States v. Sihler
  562 F.2d 349· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-04 ·cited 14×
  A warrantless search of a prison employee's belongings is permissible if conducted with the employee's consent, which can be a condition of employment.
• United States v. DeVITA
  526 F.2d 81· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the officers lacked sufficient facts to establish reasonable suspicion for the stop of the vehicle.
• United States v. Smith
  520 F.2d 74· D.C. Cir.· 1975-08-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that admittance was refused under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, making the entry lawful.
• United States v. Daly
  493 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that under pre-Almeida-Sanchez standards, the border search of the defendant's truck was valid.
• United States v. Maddox
  485 F.2d 361· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the legality of the search depends on whether the checkpoint is the functional equivalent of a border search, a determination to be made by the trial court.
• United States v. Zamora-Corona
  465 F.2d 427· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that inconsistent verdicts are permissible in a bench trial, especially when the driver's control of the vehicle provides a basis for inferring possession of contraband, while the passenger lacks such direct connection.
• Zamara Janice Williams v. State
  110 So. 3d 59· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-03-08 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Williams appeals her conviction for constructive possession of marijuana found in a closed black bag in a rental car she was driving with two passengers. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State failed to establish sufficient evidence of her dominion and control over
• Petion v. State
  4 So. 3d 83· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-03-04 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Gerald Petion appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and unlawful use of a false name. The appellate court reverses his marijuana conviction due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession in a jo
• Crites v. State
  959 So. 2d 1265· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-07-06 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that convictions for possession of cannabis with intent to sell and simple possession of the same cannabis arising from a single incident violate double jeopardy principles.
• United States v. Crotinger
  928 F.2d 203· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle and its contents was justified by probable cause, and the traffic stop was not pretextual.