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. Evans
  950 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a non-testifying witness's statement as substantive evidence of guilt for gun possession constituted prejudicial hearsay, requiring reversal of those convictions.
• United States v. Rotolo
  950 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines by adding offense levels for an aggravating role and by basing the sentence on the intended purchase of a full ton of marijuana.
• United States v. Juan José Pujana-Mena
  949 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 2×
  A "standing alone" jury instruction, stating that character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt, is not required in federal criminal trials. The court also held that an agent's testimony regarding general DEA policy on informant reliability, in response to defense cross-ex
• United States v. Nolberto Zuniga-Salinas
  945 F.2d 1302· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute and the denial of the motion for a new trial, but affirmed the acquittal on the conspiracy charge, suggesting en banc review for the latter.
• United States v. Burroughs
  935 F.2d 292· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement.
• United States v. Clair
  934 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct or in denying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. DOE
  921 F.2d 340· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute, and that the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines was not appealable.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  909 F.2d 440· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that cumulative special assessments are mandatory per count, and special parole was correctly imposed based on the law in effect at the time of the offense.
• Dupont v. State
  561 So. 2d 20· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Warner
  894 F.2d 957· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances and that the defendant's claims of police misconduct were unfounded. The court also vacated the non-Guidelines sentence, remanding for
• United States v. Burton
  894 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the "open fields" doctrine applies even if the defendant posted "No Trespassing" signs and erected fences, and that a medical necessity defense was not available due to a legal alternative. The court also found no abuse of discretion in jury selection or delib
• United States v. Borrego
  885 F.2d 822· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 2×
  Appellants waived their Posse Comitatus Act claims by failing to raise them in an appropriate pretrial motion.
• United States v. Barraza
  853 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that a defendant could be convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise even if his management activities involved bookkeeping, affirming all convictions.
• United States v. Karman
  849 F.2d 928· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the compression and sniff of the suitcases did not constitute a search or seizure, and the suspect abandoned the suitcases, negating standing. However, the court remanded for further findings on the suppression of two marijuana cigarettes and statements made b
• United States v. Gutierrez
  849 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the compression and sniff of the defendant's bag did not constitute an illegal seizure or search, and the defendant abandoned the suitcase, thus waiving his right to challenge the search.
• United States v. Meadows
  839 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Coast Guard had probable cause to board the vessel based on the totality of the circumstances observed.
• Milhouse v. State
  521 So. 2d 380· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-03-11 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Lavado
  750 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of drug offenses and that their detentions and the admission of evidence were lawful.
• United States v. Torgersen
  690 F.2d 682· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is admissible if the lawfully obtained information in the affidavit amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from any tainted information.
• United States v. Felix Bolla (Rufin)
  685 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants.
• United States v. Turner
  668 F.2d 496· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, as the defendant's control of the vessel and knowledge of the contraband could be reasonably inferred.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez
  626 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellants' vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, including sensor data, knowledge of the area, and vehicle characteristics.
• United States v. McCALVIN
  608 F.2d 1167· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to reopen its case, nor was the evidence insufficient to prove government property destruction, and a mistaken belief about the right to counsel does not excuse violent conduct.
• United States v. Marez
  569 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Border Patrol had probable cause to search the vehicle, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Chases
  558 F.2d 912· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prosecuting a defendant for separate offenses arising from the same episode, when those offenses are distinct and charges are dismissed with prejudice, does not violate double jeopardy, due process, or speedy trial rights.
• United States v. Alderete
  546 F.2d 68· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the stop and search of the defendant's truck were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, affirming his conviction.
• United States v. Seidman
  503 F.2d 1027· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-18 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to strike the entire jury panel, in refusing to admit a newspaper advertisement into evidence, or in finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Judge
  501 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search his truck was voluntary, and therefore the evidence found was admissible.
• United States v. Jones
  162 F. 4th 1114· 11th Cir.· 2026-01-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the prosecutor's reliance on an unadmitted exhibit during closing argument constituted reversible misconduct, warranting vacating the conviction on that count.
• United States v. Lakesia Harden
  104 F.4th 830· 11th Cir.· 2024-06-18 ·cited 1×
  A warrantless search of a probationer's home, otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, is not rendered unreasonable by the presence of a non-probationer occupant who is aware of the probationer's status.
• Lachman v. State
  309 So. 3d 244· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-11-06 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for resisting an officer without violence, despite potential insufficiency of evidence, because the defense counsel conceded the defendant's guilt during closing arguments. This concession was deemed "invited error," preventing the defend
• Hill v. State
  307 So. 3d 897· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-09-24 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  A defendant seeking to unseal a search warrant affidavit that the State claims contains information about a confidential informant must make a specific showing of good cause or necessity for disclosure, and a bare allegation that the information is needed to prepare a defense is
• Smith v. State
  965 So. 2d 176· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-08-15 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the prescription defense when charged with trafficking in illegal drugs if evidence supports the defense.
• Merrill v. State
  849 So. 2d 1175· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-07-23 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  April Merrill was convicted of drug possession with intent to sell based on evidence obtained from a search warrant. She appealed the denial of her motion to suppress, arguing the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause, but the court affirmed, finding the totality of circumstanc
• Dino Cerrone v. State
  744 So. 2d 590· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-11-17 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Dino Cerrone appeals after pleading guilty to drug possession charges. The court reverses the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, finding that the initial detention of Cerrone was illegal because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity wh
• Allen v. State
  702 So. 2d 301· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-12-15 ·cited 1×
• Burke v. State
  640 So. 2d 1222· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-08-05 ·cited 1×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Rascon-Ortiz
  994 F.2d 749· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that referring a vehicle to secondary inspection based on nervous behavior and visually inspecting the vehicle's undercarriage during a routine checkpoint stop do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Marcelo Guillen-Cazares
  989 F.2d 380· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances did not provide reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle, rendering the subsequent search unlawful.
• United States v. Garcia
  986 F.2d 1135· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the co-defendant's statements exculpating the defendant were admissible under the statement against interest exception to hearsay, Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3). The exclusion of these statements was not harmless error.
• United States v. Richard
  969 F.2d 849· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the destruction of marijuana evidence did not violate due process absent a showing of bad faith, and that expert testimony regarding defendants' roles in a drug transaction did not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b) by impermissibly stating an opinion on mental state.
• United States v. MC Lean-Davis
  785 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a hearsay message, excluding evidence under Rule 403, controlling the order of testimony, proving venue, or denying a Speedy Trial Act claim.
• United States v. Littlefield
  543 F. Supp. 420· N.D. Fla.· 1982-07-19 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the defendant's motions for a new trial, to withdraw his guilty plea, and for a sentence reduction, finding the alleged newly discovered evidence was known to the defendant and his attorneys at the time of the plea.
• United States v. Jones
  11th Cir.· 2025-12-19
  The court held that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referencing an unadmitted exhibit in closing arguments, warranting a new trial on that count, but affirmed the convictions on other counts.
• United States v. Alhaji Touray
  11th Cir.· 2025-08-19
  Any error in empaneling an anonymous jury was harmless, and the district court did not err in refusing a multiple-conspiracies instruction or in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing.
• United States v. Booker
  11th Cir.· 2025-04-30
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior state drug convictions, even though they were Alford pleas, because they were relevant to intent and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
• Chumney v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-03-12 ·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The appellate court addressed Andrew Chumney's appeal of his drug offense convictions. The court agreed that convictions for both possession of over twenty grams of cannabis and possession of cannabis with intent to sell, when related to the same marijuana, violate double jeopard
• Jones v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-09
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and without merit, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his sentence.
• Tawon Dontay Riley v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-01-31 ·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The appellate court affirmed a direct criminal contempt conviction against Tawon Riley, despite the trial court's improper use of bailiff statements. The court found that Riley's disruptive behavior and communication with the jury venire, which the judge did observe, provided a s
• State v. Dion Renoldo Wilson
  268 So. 3d 927· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-04-18 ·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  A traffic stop for failure to maintain a single lane is justified when the vehicle is operated in an unusual manner that endangers other vehicles, even if the driver's conduct does not constitute erratic or impaired driving.