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. Ramirez
  963 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded one defendant's sentence due to missing findings. The court found no reversible error in the admission of statements, business cards, witness testimony, or in rulings regarding mistrials, j
• United States v. Davila
  964 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no merit in his claims regarding the indictment, evidence, jury instructions, sentencing enhancements, upward departure, or denial of downward departure.
• United States v. Smith
  961 F.2d 1389· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the statute and guideline basing sentencing on the number of marijuana plants, rather than weight, does not violate due process.
• United States v. Robert Holmes (91-3735)
  961 F.2d 599· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(vii) are constitutional, and that using corroborated hearsay in a pre-sentence report for sentence enhancement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Richard
  943 F.2d 115· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, the indictment was properly sealed and not outside the statute of limitations, and the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate.
• United States v. Farfan-Carreon
  935 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a Rule 15(a) motion to depose an unavailable witness, requiring reversal and remand.
• United States v. Alfaro
  935 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the search of an employee was consensual under company policy, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute drugs in a prison context, and a witness's brief mention of an informant did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Vernon Barrett (90-5715)
  933 F.2d 355· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that convictions for conspiracy and attempt arising from the same transaction do not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Lopez-Escobar
  920 F.2d 1241· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, when the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, is appealable and can bring the underlying judgment up for review if intent is clear and no prejudice results. The court also held that the evidenc
• United States v. Lopez
  911 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on CB transmissions and observed behavior, and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his truck.
• United States v. Buchanan
  904 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was not justified by exigent circumstances, and the subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal entry, requiring suppression of the seized evidence.
• United States v. Hernandez
  901 F.2d 1217· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a DPS officer had statutory authority under the Texas Motor Carriers Act to inspect the cargo of a truck that lacked license plates, and this authority did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Bustamante-Saenz
  894 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless stop and search of the vehicle was lawful due to probable cause, and that the delay in presenting the defendants to a magistrate did not warrant suppression of their confessions.
• United States v. Caves
  890 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless roadside search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception due to probable cause, the station house search warrant was sufficiently particular, and the inventory searches of the purse were lawful.
• United States v. Marshall
  878 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the officer's intrusion into the vehicle constituted a search, it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the detected odor of marijuana and the government's interest in border security.
• United States v. Nash
  876 F.2d 1359· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a search of a vehicle during an investigatory stop is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain control of weapons, and that possession with intent to distribute constitutes a 'drug trafficking crime' under 1
• United States v. Larrazolo
  869 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, and therefore, the indictment stands.
• United States v. Klein
  850 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the cultivation of marijuana, even for personal use, constitutes 'manufacture' under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and that the indictment and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Gentry
  839 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that searches were justified by probable cause or consent, evidence supported conspiracy charges, and defenses like entrapment and overreaching were not applicable.
• United States v. Bazan
  807 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a private citizen's search, even if motivated by a desire to assist law enforcement, does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the government did not know of, acquiesce in, or initiate the intrusive conduct. Graciela Flores' conviction for two conspiracy counts
• The United States v. Hilmer Burdette Sandini
  803 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 were not preserved for appeal due to lack of specificity, and venue was proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
• State v. Mandell C. McGEE
  494 So. 2d 255· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-09-03 ·cited 10×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a cannabis possession with intent to sell charge for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the defendant's possession of an unspecified amount constituted a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The court reverses, holding that possession with i
• United States v. Walney Barrick Bodden
  736 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions of four defendants and dismissed the appeal of another, finding no merit in the challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the limitations on cross-examination.
• United States v. Nevin M. Stewart, Jr.
  700 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 10×
  Counsel's stipulation to a thirteen-person jury was a valid tactical waiver of the right to a twelve-person jury, and the Customs search was within the agency's authority.
• United States v. Ruano
  647 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 10×
  Customs agents had sufficient suspicious facts to justify an investigatory stop of the vessel.
• Rodriguez v. State
  395 So. 2d 555· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-02-04 ·cited 10×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  In consolidated appeals of six defendants convicted of felony marijuana possession, the court affirmed all convictions but vacated the sentences imposed on two defendants for simple possession where they were also sentenced for the lesser-included offense of possession with inten
• United States v. Hicks
  624 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding of the American vessel and seizure of marijuana were lawful.
• United States v. Hensler
  625 F.2d 1141· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of marijuana from a stranded sailboat was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment, as it was based on probable cause and the vessel's precarious condition.
• Mahla v. State
  383 So. 2d 730· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-05-13 ·cited 10×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Mahla appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, challenging the validity of the search warrant and arrest procedures used by Inspector Pease at an agricultural inspection station. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the
• United States v. Raphel Felo Delgado
  615 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of marijuana from a warehouse was lawful under the plain view doctrine, as officers had probable cause to enter for arrests and the contraband was visible.
• United States v. Pansy Stone Chavez and Thomas Tilford Stone
  603 F.2d 143· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the installation and use of a beeper on aircraft, authorized by state court orders based on sufficient affidavits, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to convict the sister.
• Norman v. State
  362 So. 2d 444· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-09-07 ·cited 10×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Ray Alton Norman was convicted of possession of more than five grams of cannabis and possession with intent to sell. The appellate court affirmed the conviction on Count I but reversed on Count II, finding insufficient evidence of intent to sell. The court rejected Norman's argum
• United States v. Anton Edwin Hosch, Jr.
  577 F.2d 963· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendant's vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent search was justified by probable cause.
• United States v. Canales
  573 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a 27-month delay between arrest and trial did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Zuniga-Lara
  570 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court correctly admitted the prior consistent statement of a government witness because it fell within the exception to the hearsay rule for statements offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.
• United States v. de Witt
  569 F.2d 1338· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle and probable cause to search it.
• United States v. Waddy
  536 F.2d 632· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that probable cause existed to stop and search Waddy's vehicle based on a corroborated informant's tip, but the evidence was insufficient to sustain Gonzalez's conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Haro-Portillo
  531 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial.
• United States v. Aniceto Canales, Jr.
  527 F.2d 440· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the border patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and the subsequent search was proper because marijuana was in plain view.
• United States v. BEY
  526 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance, refusing to suppress evidence, or admitting testimony, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Rocco M. Dinapoli
  519 F.2d 104· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the seizure of marijuana was constitutional and that the sentencing procedure violated federal rules and Supreme Court precedent by denying adequate time for preparation and investigation.
• United States v. Wilson
  492 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the recovery of contraband openly discarded by defendants did not constitute an illegal search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Cantu
  469 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion and that inconsistent verdicts between substantive and conspiracy charges are permissible.
• United States v. Moler
  460 F.2d 1273· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence.
• The United States v. Leon
  460 F.2d 299· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that border agents had probable cause to arrest and search the trailer, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Beauchamp v. State
  742 So. 2d 431· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-09-15 ·cited 9×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that university police could not enter a student's dormitory suite without a warrant or resident permission, even if investigating a crime.
• Keene v. State
  600 So. 2d 513· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-06-10 ·cited 9×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Florida appellate court reversed conviction for simple possession of cannabis as a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell, violating double jeopardy principles, while affirming other convictions.
• United States v. Duran
  957 F.2d 499· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the wife's consent to search the farmhouse was voluntary and that she possessed common authority over the premises, thus the search was lawful. The court also held that the district court did not err in refusing to reopen the suppression hearing.
• United States v. German Espinosa Roman
  849 F.2d 920· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant abandoned the suitcases, thus lacking standing to challenge their search, and affirmed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. However, the court vacated his conviction for violating the Travel Act based on a government
• United States v. Montgomery
  620 F.2d 753· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 9×