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. Gracielo Gardea Carrasco
  830 F.2d 41· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Gracielo and Sabino of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but insufficient to convict Jesus.
• United States v. Garrett
  727 F.2d 1003· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the disqualification of retained counsel was permissible under the Sixth Amendment, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution for continuing criminal enterprise after a conviction for a predicate offense, and the restriction of cross-examination was proper. Howe
• United States v. Mitchell
  538 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 78×
  The dissenting judge believes the panel opinion correctly applied legal principles to undisputed facts and would reverse the conviction.
• United States v. Buddy Joe Barnard
  490 F.2d 907· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-10 ·cited 77×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District of California for all counts, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings regarding witness competency, credibility, and discovery.
• United States v. Vicente Meneses-Davila
  580 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-25 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the prosecutor's repeated comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence, used to impeach his trial testimony, constituted reversible error because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Soto
  591 F.2d 1091· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 75×
  The court held that while evidence was sufficient for possession convictions, it was insufficient for importation convictions for some appellants and all convictions for two others. Motions to suppress were properly denied, and marijuana samples were admissible.
• United States v. Smith
  918 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Rush
  738 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated due to various excludable delays, including those from pretrial motions, joint trials with codefendants, and 'ends of justice' continuances.
• United States v. Clark
  559 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to stop and search the truck based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the subsequent search of the station wagon was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Espinoza-Seanez
  862 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a rational jury could find sufficient evidence to establish the required intent for conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Stanford Champion
  813 F.2d 1154· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of a single conspiracy, and that the appellants were not prejudiced by any variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Dien
  609 F.2d 1038· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the warrantless search of cartons found in a vehicle, even with probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment under Arkansas v. Sanders, and that warrantless security searches of premises require exigent circumstances, which were absent here. However, the init
• United States v. Johnson
  588 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-17 ·cited 72×
  A warrantless search of luggage is invalid if the exigency could have been eliminated by seizure and immobilization, requiring a warrant for the search.
• United States v. Glasgow
  658 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy and marijuana possession convictions for both appellants, but affirmed Glasgow's cocaine possession conviction.
• United States v. Bronstein
  521 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the use of a marijuana-sniffing dog to search a private bag constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, but that the reduced expectation of privacy in checked baggage, combined with reasonable suspicion, can justify such a warrantless search.
• United States v. Butler
  611 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the jury selection process was constitutional, the warrantless arrests and seizures were lawful, the denial of severance was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy to possess marijuana and aiding and abetting possessi
• United States v. J.R. "Buddy" Carter
  760 F.2d 1568· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding severance, the warrantless search of the aircraft, comments on silence, admission of extrinsic evidence, and sentencing were without merit. The convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Laughman
  618 F.2d 1067· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the sailing vessel was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Anderson
  500 F.2d 1311· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-27 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent investigation, provided probable cause for the warrantless search of Anderson's car and the arrests of all appellants. The warrantless search of claimed luggage was unconstitutional, but the error was harmless.
• United States v. Margarito Juan Alvarez
  548 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 66×
  The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the jury's verdict for conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. McLAUGHLIN
  525 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-07 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress evidence and the motion to reveal the informant's identity was proper, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Alton Spradlen and Joseph Reilly
  662 F.2d 724· 11th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conspiracy convictions, despite acquittal on the possession count.
• United States v. Charris
  822 F.2d 1213· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 64×
  The court held that consent by a foreign nation to enforce U.S. law against its vessel on the high seas does not make the vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a), and that such consent falls exclusively under § 955a(c).
• United States v. August Carl Benz
  740 F.2d 903· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Benz on both counts and that the district court's rulings were correct, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Prueitt
  540 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a bill of particulars and that Petersen had automatic standing to challenge searches.
• United States v. Arra
  630 F.2d 836· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the Coast Guard had authority to board and search the vessel, that the district court had jurisdiction over the offenses, and that the destruction of recorded communications did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Davis
  562 F.2d 681· D.C. Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's constructive possession of drugs and intent to distribute, and that the trial court properly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Freund
  525 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for disclosure of an informer's identity without conducting an in camera interview to balance the competing interests.
• United States v. Williams-Hendricks
  805 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, as it relied on attenuated inferences.
• United States v. Miranda
  593 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a prosecutor's reference in closing argument to a co-conspirator's conviction on less evidence than that presented against the defendant deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Evasio Hernandez
  574 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the admission of incriminating statements obtained in violation of the defendant's Miranda rights, specifically the right to cut off questioning, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• United States v. Calhoun
  510 F.2d 861· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-24 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, in its voir dire, or in excluding defense witnesses, and that the speedy trial claim was without merit. However, it found that Counts V and VI should have been consolidated.
• United States v. Hart
  506 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez does not alter the precedential effect of circuit case law upholding searches at permanent border patrol checkpoints.
• United States v. Jones
  676 F.2d 327· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-28 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day limit for indictment applies only when an arrest is accompanied by a filed complaint or charges, not a mere arrest followed by release without charges.
• United States v. Hawkins
  658 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the district court's abbreviated voir dire was insufficient to ensure impartiality given extensive pretrial publicity, requiring reversal for some appellants. It also held that consecutive sentences for RICO and predicate offenses are permissible.
• United States v. Damitz
  495 F.2d 50· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 61×
  A search warrant is valid if the remaining true portions of the affidavit, after excising false statements, establish probable cause, especially when the affiant is a non-government informant and the government agents relied in good faith.
• United States v. Amel F. Lueth
  807 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge's conduct, or the refusal to sever tax charges from drug charges.
• United States v. Allen
  675 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 60×
  The court held that extensive surveillance, including helicopter overflights and use of vision-enhancing devices, did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Ludwig
  508 F.2d 140· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-27 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper vouching for the credibility of the police constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal, and that the search warrant was lawful.
• United States v. Maslanka
  501 F.2d 208· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for importation of marijuana, but sufficient for possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Warrantless seizure of clothing incident to arrest was permissible.
• Harris v. State
  647 So. 2d 206· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-07-29 ·cited 59×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Michael Kevin Harris appealed his conviction for drug possession with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest without violence. The court reversed all convictions, finding insufficient evidence of constructive possession and that the officer lacked
• United States v. Spetz
  721 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the dog sniffs were lawful, the warrant for the van pak was valid despite minor misstatements in the affidavit, the protective sweep of the residence was unlawful, but the subsequent search warrant for the residence was valid due to independent probable cause.
• United States v. Molinar-Apodaca
  889 F.2d 1417· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for drug and firearms offenses and rejecting constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Russo
  796 F.2d 1443· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' challenges regarding misjoinder, severance, speedy trial rights, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of the evidence.
• United States v. Sutton
  794 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that dual representation did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the plea agreement was not breached. The court also held that the investigatory stop was justified by founded suspicion and that severance was not warranted.
• United States v. Bibbero
  749 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was an error that was not harmless, and the government's violation of the Jencks Act required reversal.
• United States v. Manbeck
  744 F.2d 360· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding grand jury discrimination, dismissal of a count, suppression of evidence, and sufficiency of evidence, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Nickerson
  669 F.2d 1016· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the improper bolstering of a key witness's credibility and the erroneous jury instruction on conspiracy proof constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Salinas-Salinas
  555 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy or possession of marijuana.
• United States v. Patterson
  492 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that customs agents had probable cause to search the appellants' vehicle for contraband, justifying the seizure of marijuana.