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. Faustino Garza
  531 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial judge did not err in jury instructions or in denying a mistrial.
• Fidel Fernandez v. State
  63 So. 3d 881· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-06-15 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Fidel Fernandez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana plants found in his home, arguing that law enforcement conducted an unlawful warrantless entry onto his residential property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the officer
• Alleyne v. State
  42 So. 3d 948· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-09-01 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove intent to sell marijuana, reversing the conviction for that offense.
• Searn Jerome Simmons v. State
  913 So. 2d 19· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-09-14 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Searn Jerome Simmons appealed consolidated convictions for drug and firearm possession in Sarasota County and a probation revocation in Manatee County. The court reversed the Sarasota convictions because officers failed to comply with knock-and-announce procedures when executing
• Dozier v. State
  668 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-01-31 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Atkinson
  979 F.2d 1219· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Mr. Atkinson's sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because his career offender status was misapplied, but affirmed Mr. Montgomery's sentence as the district court did not err in its drug quantity determination or § 5K1.1 departure.
• United States v. Clonts
  966 F.2d 1366· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding chain of custody, outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing calculation lacked merit.
• United States v. Villarreal
  963 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a warrantless search of a sealed drum, even if labeled as a common chemical, violates the Fourth Amendment if the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the container and no exigent circumstances justified the search.
• United States v. Mitcheal Edmonson
  962 F.2d 1535· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Isidro Farias-Farias
  925 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
• United States v. Morgan
  914 F.2d 272· D.C. Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the initial encounters with the suspects were not seizures, the pat-down search was consensual, and the jury instructions on constructive possession were proper, with sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Boucher
  909 F.2d 1170· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the traffic stop was lawful, the discovery of a concealed weapon provided probable cause for a search, pre-Miranda statements were admissible, and the guilty plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
• United States v. Noble Lee Simpson
  901 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentence was improperly enhanced due to procedural non-compliance by the government.
• United States v. Paul Lochmondy (88-2049)
  890 F.2d 817· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's elicitation of testimony regarding a cooperating witness's past cooperation and convictions, and the use of codefendants' guilty pleas, were permissible for impeachment and credibility assessment, not as substantive evidence of guilt. The cour
• United States v. Jackie Richard (Black Bear)
  872 F.2d 253· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not entrapped as a matter of law and that her sentence, while lengthy, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Waldo B. Schoenheit
  856 F.2d 74· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41's nighttime search requirements does not automatically require suppression of evidence, and the prejudicial error rule applies unless the violation was intentional or the search would not have occurred otherwise.
• United States v. Cosme de Luna, Jr.
  815 F.2d 301· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was proper.
• United States v. Pelham
  801 F.2d 875· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the affidavit, based on a named informant's direct observation, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's finding of probable cause, and thus the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Souder
  782 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the absence of counsel at sentencing invalidates the sentences, requiring remand for resentencing. However, other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
• United States v. Kalish
  780 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prior acquittal on conspiracy charges does not necessarily preclude a subsequent conviction for substantive offenses or aiding and abetting, especially when the jury's verdict in the prior trial did not necessarily resolve the specific facts at issue in the
• United States v. Sarmiento
  750 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 8×
  Customs officers do not have statutory authority to board vessels on the high seas, as this authority is limited to customs waters.
• United States v. del Prado-Montero
  740 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and that their sentences and the seizure of the vessel were valid.
• United States v. Batista
  731 F.2d 765· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Coast Guard had authority to stop and search the vessel because it was stateless and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Poole
  718 F.2d 671· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was unconstitutional because it was not justified by a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, specifically the automobile exception, as there was no exigency.
• United States v. Villegas-Rojas
  715 F.2d 564· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Hensel
  711 F.2d 1000· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statutes under which appellants were convicted were constitutional and that there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions. Claims regarding evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were also found to be without merit.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  703 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marihuana.
• United States v. Gordon
  700 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government failed to prove dominion or control over the contraband, thus reversing the conviction.
• Bibby v. State
  423 So. 2d 970· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-12-06 ·cited 8×
  Conviction for marijuana possession reversed because officers entered Bibby's home without warrant or consent to arrest him, and the State stipulated that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
• United States v. Quirino Ortega
  644 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless stops and seizures of the vessels were justified by exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine, and that the special parole term was improperly imposed.
• United States v. Molina-Garcia
  634 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence searched, thus possessing standing to challenge the search's constitutionality.
• United States v. Powell
  632 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is appealable, but the denial of a motion to strike overt acts is not. An acquittal on a possession charge does not collaterally estop a conspiracy charge if the jury could have found guilt on the
• Rowell v. State
  382 So. 2d 886· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant because the informant's identity was not material to the defense.
• United States v. Villalon
  605 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the destruction of evidence, the legality of the search, the refusal of a jury instruction, and insufficiency of evidence did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• Behr v. State
  376 So. 2d 398· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-10-11 ·cited 8×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Steven Alan Behr was convicted of possession of marijuana and appealed the denial of his motions to suppress evidence seized from his truck and a warehouse. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that police had probable cause based on extensive sur
• United States v. Rasor
  599 F.2d 1330· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an affidavit based on an anonymous tip, lacking details on the informant's basis and credibility, and insufficiently corroborated by independent police investigation, cannot establish probable cause for a search warrant.
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Sixto O'Calagan C. (Cerezo)
  580 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the district court had jurisdiction.
• United States v. Morris
  565 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the unusual packing of cacti, the defendant's nervousness, his denial of knowledge of a suspicious bag, and prior intelligence, provided probable cause for the warrantless search of the truck.
• United States v. Gandara-Nunez
  564 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Border Patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific articulable facts and rational inferences, and that the subsequent search was justified by consent and probable cause.
• United States v. Faulkner
  547 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was constitutional and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Stricklin
  534 F.2d 1386· 10th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the pickup truck and U-Haul trailer were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
• United States v. Moffett
  522 F.2d 1379· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court was not required to hold a voluntariness hearing as no issue of voluntariness was raised, and Miranda warnings were not applicable to the search request.
• United States v. Lorna Jean Laird
  511 F.2d 1039· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle provided probable cause for a search, rendering the motion to suppress properly denied.
• United States v. Newell
  506 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the appellants' vehicle violated their Fourth Amendment rights because the government failed to establish either a border nexus or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
• United States v. Bean
  484 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances provided probable cause for the search of the truck, even without a border search exception.
• United States v. Ogden
  484 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Pleno Matute
  767 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 7×
  A vessel sailing under the flags of two or more states, using them according to convenience, can be assimilated to a stateless vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even if validly registered in a foreign country.
• United States v. Cruz-Valdez
  743 F.2d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in acquitting a drug smuggler, arguing sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Alfrey
  612 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Customs officers have authority to stop and board vessels in customs waters for document checks without suspicion, and that the plain view doctrine and probable cause justified the subsequent search. The court also found insufficient evidence for certain convi
• United States v. Wuco
  535 F.2d 1200· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a technical misdescription in the indictment, even if based on a mistaken statutory reference, does not invalidate convictions if the facts alleged and proved constitute a violation of federal criminal law.