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. Doyle Ray Henderson
  525 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment as a sanction for the government's refusal to provide a necessary state court transcript to indigent defendants.
• United States v. Newman
  490 F.2d 993· 10th Cir.· 1974-02-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the marijuana was seized illegally without probable cause, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
• Vernell Robinson v. State
  57 So. 3d 278· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-03-30 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Vernell Robinson appeals his conviction for possession of more than twenty grams of cannabis, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and exclusion of alibi testimony. The court affirmed the denial of the judgment of acquittal motion but rever
• Deaunte Phillips v. State
  961 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-08-15 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Deaunte Phillips was convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to sell based on circumstantial evidence that 26.6 grams of marijuana were packaged in ten individual plastic bags. The appellate court reversed the conviction for possession with intent to sell, holding that th
• Sizemore v. State
  939 So. 2d 209· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-10-11 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search was not voluntary because he was effectively detained and acquiesced to apparent police authority, despite being told he was free to go.
• Barnes v. State
  838 So. 2d 641· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-02-28 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Robert Barnes was convicted of marijuana possession with intent to sell after police found ten individually wrapped bags of marijuana and $4,476 in cash in his vehicle. On appeal, Barnes challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the intent-to-sell element, but the court affirmed
• United States v. Irvin Alamia Moran (91-6309) & Rena Morales (91-6310)
  998 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the time granted for filing pretrial motions is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day calculation, and that the traffic stop was constitutional.
• United States v. Young
  997 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict but reversed the sentence, remanding for a new sentencing hearing. The court held that the district court must determine the quantity of drugs a defendant could reasonably foresee as part of a conspiracy when sentencing under mandatory minimum
• United States v. Jarold Skinner
  972 F.2d 171· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that law enforcement officers were entitled to the Leon good faith exception, and that the defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.
• United States v. RAY
  973 F.2d 840· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States v. Belanger
  970 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's combined filings provided sufficient notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to allow for an enhanced sentence, even if one filing was defective on its own.
• United States v. Burnett
  968 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that prior cocaine transactions could be included as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, even if involving a different drug type, if they constituted the same course of conduct.
• United States v. Moye
  951 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug offense, in its jury instructions regarding intent, or in limiting closing argument time.
• United States v. Martinez-Perez
  941 F.2d 295· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the search and seizure, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hamilton
  931 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in marijuana buried in a washing machine on property not owned by him, and that the money laundering statute applied to domestic mailings of drug proceeds.
• United States v. Gallegos
  922 F.2d 630· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in using an incorrect guideline sentencing range but did not err in factoring additional marijuana into the base offense level. The case is remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Noe Lopez-Gonzalez
  916 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip corroborated by independent police observations, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle.
• United States v. Rowell
  903 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts must apply the federal 'totality of the circumstances' standard for probable cause when evaluating state-issued warrants in federal prosecutions, even if state standards are stricter.
• United States v. Dovali-Avila
  895 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 6×
  A dog's alert at a permanent immigration checkpoint provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search, and a dog sniff itself does not constitute a search.
• K.J. v. State
  557 So. 2d 134· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-02-13 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court affirmed the juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent to sell based on the quantity, packaging, and the juvenile's conduct upon police arrival.
• United States v. Corpus
  882 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that no due process violation occurred regarding the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. Dozier
  826 F.2d 866· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Short
  805 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession because the evidence did not sufficiently dispute the element of intent to distribute.
• Simmons v. State
  491 So. 2d 1307· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-05 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Simmons appealed the denial of his motion to suppress marijuana found in his car during a search at a residence where a valid search warrant was executed. The court held that the vehicle search was proper because sufficient evidence connected the car to the premises, including th
• United States v. Pearson
  791 F.2d 867· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that venue was proper, the search of the AURORA I was lawful based on reasonable suspicion, the evidence was sufficient to convict Taylor, and Rainey's statement was voluntary.
• Algar Ferguson v. Judge James A. Knight
  792 F.2d 581· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 6×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the use of a prior conviction to prove intent to sell in a second offense trafficking charge, without a limiting instruction, did not violate the Constitution under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
• United States v. Nikolas Severdija
  790 F.2d 1556· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to the prosecution's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland.
• United States v. Guthrie
  789 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the double jeopardy clause should afford greater protection against successive prosecutions than the majority's interpretation of Garrett v. United States allows.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Torres
  779 F.2d 626· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict the defendant of knowing and intentional possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Kasvin
  757 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the business records were admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the evidence supported the conviction for conspiracy, either as a member or as an aider and abettor.
• United States v. Curry
  751 F.2d 442· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding the entry into Curry's hotel room were clearly erroneous, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing. For Silvestri, Sr., the court held that while the initial entry into his residence was illegal, the evidence seized
• United States v. Merritt
  736 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed convictions for four defendants and judgments of acquittal for two others, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedure in most instances, while reversing acquittals due to insufficient evidence for two crew members.
• United States v. Nargi
  732 F.2d 1102· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the police had sufficient objective grounds for stopping the defendant's van based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent actions taken during the stop were reasonable and did not constitute an unlawful arrest.
• United States v. Domingo Hernandez
  724 F.2d 904· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act clock began running on the date of the defendant's arraignment under the second indictment, not the date of reindictment, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice for his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim.
• United States v. Hernandez
  715 F.2d 548· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the arrests were lawful under federal common law, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Mireles
  673 F.2d 756· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not constitute reversible misconduct and did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Roberts
  650 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Odum
  625 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the "automatic standing" rule is overruled by Salvucci, and that separate sentences for "carrying" and "using" a firearm during the same felony are improper.
• United States v. Kenney
  601 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Customs officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search the vehicle, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish illegal importation of marijuana.
• United States v. Torres
  590 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the search and seizure of marijuana from the defendant's automobile did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Blanford
  566 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a routine stop at a permanent border checkpoint and a subsequent search based on the odor of marihuana do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Nichols
  560 F.2d 1227· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the search and seizure of marihuana was lawful, as the agent had probable cause and the defendant's consent.
• United States v. Arrasmith
  557 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in accepting the border patrol agent's testimony that marijuana smells like marijuana, as this was a factual finding based on evidence and common sense, not improper judicial notice.
• United States v. Ferguson
  555 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Guerrera
  554 F.2d 987· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of his brother's car, and therefore, the drugs found therein were admissible.
• United States v. Leal
  547 F.2d 1222· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was constitutional and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Heriberto Pacheco-Ruiz
  549 F.2d 1204· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a warrantless search of a crawl space under a house, even with probable cause to believe it contained illegal aliens, was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Wooldridge
  508 F.2d 802· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful, and the defendant's statements were admissible, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Mitchell
  493 F.2d 9· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law and that the jury was properly instructed on the procuring agent defense.
• United States v. Medina-Flores
  477 F.2d 225· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant had standing to object to the warrantless search of the vehicle, and the circumstances provided probable cause for the search, rendering the evidence admissible.