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. Guerrero-Guerrero
  776 F.2d 1071· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's inference that the defendants knew about the marijuana on board, and that the jury's verdict should not be overturned.
• United States v. Pintado
  715 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 57×
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• United States v. Henry
  878 F.2d 937· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while multiple § 924(c)(1) charges can stem from separate drug trafficking offenses, the indictment's failure to properly distinguish the predicate offenses for each firearm charge necessitates vacating one conviction.
• United States v. Magee
  821 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and importation of marijuana, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of severance motions.
• United States v. McHUGH
  769 F.2d 860· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of the pickup truck, and alternatively, that the warrantless search and seizure were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was
• United States v. Onesimo Galvan, Jr.
  693 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, particularly telephone records, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy or possessed and imported marihuana.
• United States v. Kalish
  690 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the defendant's trial on the conspiracy counts of the second indictment was barred by double jeopardy because the evidence demonstrated a single, continuing conspiracy. The court affirmed the conviction on the substantive count.
• United States v. Moreno
  649 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the past marijuana dealings of the appellant's brothers.
• United States v. Zurosky
  614 F.2d 779· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the warehouse and the truck were justified under exigent circumstances and probable cause, and that the search of the vessel was permissible under the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Solis
  536 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the use of trained dogs to detect the odor of marijuana emanating from a semi-trailer, in an area open to the public, did not constitute an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Miller
  492 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the new rule announced in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States should not be applied retroactively to searches conducted before its decision, even if the case was pending on direct appeal.
• United States v. Steinkoenig
  487 F.2d 225· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the marijuana was found in a valid border search, and the admission of other evidence, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Malin
  908 F.2d 163· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that probable cause supported the search warrant and that the jury instructions and evidence were sufficient for the firearm offense conviction.
• United States v. Bond
  847 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for CCE status, upholding joint trials, and allowing admission of evidence and denial of recusal motions.
• United States v. Barker
  771 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider individualized factors in sentencing, imposing maximum sentences based on the crime's magnitude and general deterrence rather than the defendants' culpability.
• United States v. German Ceballos
  706 F.2d 1198· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the boarding was lawful under the Coast Guard's authority, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for drug possession, importation, and conspiracy.
• Zeinida Morales v. State
  407 So. 2d 321· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-15 ·cited 54×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The Florida appellate court upheld convictions for marijuana possession arising from a warrantless search of vessels in U.S. territorial waters, holding that the search constituted a lawful border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, despite the governmen
• United States v. Perez
  648 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that the submission of written jury instructions was not prejudicial error. The court vacated Perez's special parole term as it cannot be imposed for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
• United States v. McGRATH
  613 F.2d 361· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence seized without a warrant from a van and a briefcase, and that the indictment and trial were timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Gardner
  553 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception and that the defendant failed to prove a violation of the knock and announce statute.
• United States v. Ingham
  502 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 54×
  A warrantless search of a vessel newly arrived from a foreign port is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without direct observation of its entry into United States waters, if circumstances provide reasonable grounds to believe it has made such an entry.
• United States v. McCORMICK
  468 F.2d 68· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the van was constitutional based on probable cause derived from the odor of marijuana and suspicious circumstances, and that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible despite a delay in arraignment.
• United States v. Coburn
  876 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing due to the district court's unconstitutional ruling on the Sentencing Reform Act.
• United States v. Ivey
  546 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the search of the aircraft was a lawful border search, and the defendants' other claims of error were without merit.
• United States v. Martinez
  481 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-03 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a warrantless search of a truck 150 miles inland and 142 hours after crossing the border was constitutionally permissible under the border search exception due to reasonable suspicion, and that co-conspirator hearsay testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Paiz
  905 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy, knowing participation, and applying the Pinkerton doctrine. It also upheld the use of the 'ostrich' jury instruction and rejected double jeopardy claims.
• United States v. Kaufman
  858 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of counts and defendants was proper, and the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• Pomerantz v. State
  372 So. 2d 104· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-15 ·cited 52×
  Pomerantz was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after police searched his checked luggage at Miami International Airport and found drugs. The court reversed, holding that police actively participated in an unreasonable warrantless search that violated
• United States v. Rocha-Lopez
  527 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific articulable facts indicating potential alien smuggling, even though the defendant was ultimately convicted of marijuana smuggling.
• United States v. Maizumi
  526 F.2d 848· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the search of the appellant's vehicle was valid under the border search doctrine applicable at the time, and that the prosecutor's remarks regarding the appellant's silence and inconsistent statements were permissible.
• United States v. Watkins
  519 F.2d 294· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the rent receipts were improperly admitted as hearsay and that the government failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gloria
  494 F.2d 477· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on continuances, evidence admission, jury instructions, or new trial motions.
• United States v. Normandeau
  800 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 49×
  The court held that knowledge of the quantity of marijuana is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and that a warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible if supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Flynn
  664 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the attachment of a tracking device inside an aircraft was justified by a warrant based on probable cause, and the subsequent search of the aircraft at the Panama City Airport was a valid border search, not requiring a warrant or probable cause. The evidence w
• Gluesenkamp v. State
  391 So. 2d 192· Fla.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 49×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The Florida Supreme Court consolidated three cases challenging the constitutionality of section 570.15, which requires trucks to stop at agricultural inspection stations. The Court upheld the statute as a valid exercise of police power, rejected vagueness and equal protection cha
• United States v. Delval
  600 F.2d 1098· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the mere presence of a former informant in the jury venire, without any allegation of actual communication or prejudice, did not warrant quashing the venire or individual juror questioning. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Valentin Escamilla and Cosme Sanes Escamilla
  560 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents lacked the specific articulable facts and rational inferences necessary to establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicles.
• Gardner v. State
  661 So. 2d 1274· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-10-27 ·cited 48×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a defendant's conviction and sentence for drug and firearm offenses. The court held that additional points for firearm use were properly scored on the sentencing guidelines, and that sentences exceeding statutory maximums were permiss
• United States v. Hardy
  855 F.2d 753· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 48×
  An officer's subjective motive for making a traffic stop is irrelevant if the stop is objectively legal and authorized by law.
• United States v. Antone
  753 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court's rulings on probable cause, factual basis for guilty pleas, and suppression motions were correct.
• United States v. Lopez
  709 F.2d 742· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for knowingly participating in the drug conspiracy, and that various trial errors were either not preserved or not prejudicial.
• United States v. Penes
  577 F.2d 754· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to accept a nolo contendere plea without establishing a factual basis, nor in denying motions for recusal or a new trial based on juror competency. The court also found that the admission of certain statements, evidence
• United States v. Rocha
  553 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-05 ·cited 48×
  The court held that evidence of a prior arrest for marijuana possession, even with an acquittal, was admissible to prove knowledge and intent in a subsequent drug possession trial.
• United States v. Jiminez
  564 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2009-04-07 ·cited 47×
  Jesus Jiminez was convicted of manufacturing and distributing marijuana after police discovered a sophisticated grow operation at his residence containing 210 plants and large quantities of packaged marijuana. Jiminez appealed on three grounds: insufficient evidence, improper adm
• United States v. Aguilera-Zapata
  901 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 47×
  The court held that a defendant can be held accountable for a co-defendant's reasonably foreseeable possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, even if the defendant was unaware of the firearm.
• United States v. Trejo-Zambrano
  582 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the government had a responsibility to inform the court that the appellant's prior youth offender conviction had been set aside.
• United States v. Cross
  916 F.2d 622· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 46×
  The quantity of marijuana is not an essential element of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute or possession with intent to distribute, and thus need not be alleged in the indictment or proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Geronimo Muniz-Melchor
  894 F.2d 1430· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that tapping a propane tank to assess its structural integrity, which could reveal the presence of non-contraband items, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.