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. Davis
  905 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act applies extraterritorially to the defendant, and the Fourth Amendment does not extend to the search of a non-resident alien's vessel on the high seas.
• United States v. Bell
  833 F.2d 272· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that a hotel registration card was admissible for non-hearsay purposes.
• United States v. Dobson
  781 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 13×
  The Coast Guard's stop of the MIR was constitutional because it occurred at the functional equivalent of a border and was supported by a firm belief that the vessel had come from international waters, or alternatively, was authorized by statute for document inspection.
• United States v. Legeza
  559 F.2d 441· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Falfurrias checkpoint stops and marijuana odor searches are constitutional and that the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• Vanslyke v. State
  936 So. 2d 1218· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-09-13 ·cited 12×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  A warrantless search of a home based on a vague child abuse report lacking specific details of imminent danger is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
• Whitehurst v. State
  852 So. 2d 902· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-08-08 ·cited 12×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Anthony Whitehurst appeals his convictions for drug possession with intent to sell and resisting arrest. The appellate court reverses his convictions, finding that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that the State must prove Whitehurst knew
• United States v. Broussard
  987 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Batson v. Kentucky does not extend to gender-based peremptory challenges, but even if it did, the trial court misapplied the doctrine by requiring more than gender-neutral reasons. The denial or impairment of peremptory challenges is reversible error without a
• United States v. Stowell
  947 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Tucker of conspiracy and aiding and abetting, but that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of multiple conspiracies for Wood.
• United States v. Quartermaine
  913 F.2d 910· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant posed a risk of flight and by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger to the community, thus pretrial detention was warranted.
• United States v. Friedman
  909 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 12×
  Improper prosecutorial remarks during summation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and the role of defense counsel, warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Newsome
  898 F.2d 119· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was properly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. Varca
  896 F.2d 900· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' retained counsel did not have disqualifying conflicts of interest and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to disqualify counsel or in its evidentiary rulings and sentencing.
• United States v. Velasquez
  890 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act requires dismissal of only the offenses charged in the original complaint if the indictment is untimely, and that the defendant's role in the offense was not minimal enough for a sentencing reduction.
• United States v. Robert L.
  874 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the border patrol agent lacked founded suspicion to justify the investigatory detention of the juvenile's automobile, as the observed factors were insufficient when considered collectively.
• United States v. Rutherford
  824 F.2d 831· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the investigatory detention did not ripen into a de facto arrest without probable cause, the search warrant was based on probable cause, and the two counts for possession of marijuana and hashish were distinct offenses.
• United States v. Brown Costello Ramey
  791 F.2d 317· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 12×
  A district court has discretion to seal an indictment for legitimate prosecutorial needs beyond merely securing the defendant's arrest, and dismissal is only warranted upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the defendant.
• United States v. Harrington
  761 F.2d 1482· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search warrant was not defective, the seized items were in plain view, administrative subpoenas were validly issued to third parties, and the sentence for continuing criminal enterprise was not cruel and unusual punishment. However, conspiracy convictions
• United States v. Butts
  729 F.2d 1514· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the monitoring of a beeper signal disclosing an aircraft's presence in public airspace does not constitute an unconstitutional search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, even if the beeper remained installed beyond the warrant's removal date.
• United States v. Jennings
  726 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of possession, even with inconsistencies in witness testimony.
• United States v. Amos Lisenby
  716 F.2d 1355· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge held that the offenses were not separate and distinct, as the defendant was solicited by the government.
• United States v. Watkins
  662 F.2d 1090· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the vessel, tractor-trailer, and van were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but reversed convictions for importation due to insufficient evidence of foreign origin.
• Brown v. State
  392 So. 2d 280· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-02 ·cited 12×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The Florida Court of Appeal reversed a drug conviction because the warrantless entry into the defendant's home to arrest him violated the Fourth Amendment under Payton v. New York. The court allowed suppression of evidence seized during the arrest but upheld the search warrant ev
• United States v. Cimino
  631 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search the vehicle.
• United States v. Driscoll
  632 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search of the airplane constituted a permissible extended border search based on radar tracking, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to personally examine the plane.
• Hall v. State
  382 So. 2d 742· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-03-28 ·cited 12×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Caroline Marie Hall and James Larry Hall appeal their convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The court reverses, holding that where a controlled substance is found in premises under joint possession, the state must present affirmative proof of the defendants
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Sierra
  594 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appellant's confession and seized items into evidence, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Wilson
  553 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Randado checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border and that the search of the appellant's camper was reasonable. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Vallejo
  541 F.2d 1164· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the arresting officer had probable cause to search the vehicle and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an in-court experiment.
• United States v. Kidd
  540 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agent had probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents based on the odor of marijuana and plain view observations.
• United States v. Chester
  537 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The magistrate's determination of probable cause to search Chester's residence was improper because the affidavit did not establish probable cause, only mere suspicion.
• United States v. Erasmus Flecha
  539 F.2d 874· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement against appellant, based solely on his silence while under arrest, was erroneous.
• United States v. Garcia
  516 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-19 ·cited 12×
  Even if the initial stop at the checkpoint was illegal, the defendant's subsequent flight and the ensuing chase provided independent probable cause for his arrest and the search of his vehicle.
• United States v. Ortiz
  513 F.2d 198· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that imposing an adult sentence consecutively to a Youth Corrections Act commitment is inconsistent and erroneous.
• United States v. Guajardo
  508 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and lawful search and seizure.
• United States v. Herbert
  502 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1974-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to require the government to identify its informant, nor in denying the motion to suppress evidence, and that the indictment and trial were proper.
• United States v. Emilio Arturo Martinez-Miramontes
  494 F.2d 808· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the border patrol agent's stop and search of the vehicle, including the customs agent's detection of marijuana odor, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Harriott H. Childs
  463 F.2d 390· 4th Cir.· 1972-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions on intent to distribute were proper, conforming to established legal standards rather than the challenged statutory provision.
• United States v. Hernandez
  962 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Cordova-Larios
  907 F.2d 40· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of mere presence, and the denial of this instruction warranted reversal.
• United States v. Acosta
  769 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 11×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness.
• United States v. Blakeney
  753 F.2d 152· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the convictions for possession of firearms should be vacated as they arose from a single offense, but affirmed the marihuana possession convictions.
• United States v. Loyd
  721 F.2d 331· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the magistrate's failure to certify the accuracy of a transcribed telephonic search warrant did not require suppression of evidence when there was no constitutional violation, prejudice, or bad faith.
• United States v. Henry
  698 F.2d 1172· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that continuances granted at the defendant's request, based on findings that the ends of justice outweighed the public's and defendant's interest in a speedy trial, are excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's time computation.
• United States v. Astroff
  556 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an affidavit containing a negligent misrepresentation does not automatically invalidate the search warrant or subsequent convictions.
• Smith v. State
  333 So. 2d 91· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-07 ·cited 11×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that even if the arrest was unlawful, the convictions must be affirmed because the evidence was voluntarily abandoned and not the fruit of an unlawful search.
• United States v. Ogilvie
  527 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-15 ·cited 11×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the order of suppression, finding the stop of the car constitutional.
• Delgado-George v. State
  125 So. 3d 1031· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-07-26 ·cited 10×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Ricardo Delgado-George was convicted of three drug-related offenses, including possession of a conveyance used for trafficking controlled substances. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction on the vehicle-trafficking charge, finding insufficient evidence that
• United States v. Lacey
  969 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for the obstruction offense when it had already enhanced the underlying drug offense level, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Colette Joe Bernaugh
  969 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and aggravating role, nor in calculating the drug quantity or accepting the guilty plea for violating the Travel Act.
• United States v. Blume
  967 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 10×
  A district court has discretion to instruct a jury on the consequences of an insanity acquittal, but this discretion is limited to situations where the jury might mistakenly believe acquittees go free.