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. Veillette
  778 F.2d 899· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 46×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, held that a warrant obtained in partial reliance on observations from an illegal search, issued over 48 hours after entry, was valid.
• United States v. Freeze
  707 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 46×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, but declined to rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.
• United States v. Niver
  689 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the search of the aircraft and luggage was lawful as it occurred at the functional equivalent of the border, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. ARD
  731 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various challenges, including those related to search and seizure, sufficiency of evidence, variance, conflict of interest, co-conspirator statements, cross-examination, presentat
• United States v. Geno Pasquale Raffone
  693 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 45×
  Convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise are affirmed, as the evidence was sufficient and no reversible error occurred.
• United States v. Cortes
  588 F.2d 106· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 45×
  The Coast Guard's boarding and search of a stateless vessel on the high seas was justified under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) and international law, and the subsequent discovery of marijuana was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
• State v. Boyd
  615 So. 2d 786· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-03-10 ·cited 44×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Florida appealed the suppression of evidence and dismissal of an improper exhibition of a firearm charge in a case involving James Boyd, who discharged a shotgun in someone else's yard while acting angry and threatening. The appellate court reversed both orders, holding that the
• United States v. Mondello
  927 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-07 ·cited 44×
  Flight and evasion constituting obstruction of justice requires more than instinctive reaction to police apprehension; a defendant's deliberate two-week evasion of authorities after arrest, followed by a forty-minute chase to escape capture, satisfies the willfulness requirement
• United States v. Culpepper
  834 F.2d 879· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession, the admission of testimony regarding uncharged bad acts was not plain error, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a jury view of the field.
• United States v. Dorsey
  819 F.2d 1055· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of extrinsic act evidence and a prosecutor's comment were not reversible error.
• United States v. Wright
  742 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal for Stearns on the conspiracy charge, and that the jury's verdict of conviction on the lesser included offense should be reinstated. The court affirmed all other convictions.
• United States v. Glenn
  667 F.2d 1269· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 44×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Celio Castro and Ralph Alfonso
  596 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the customs search of the shrimper was constitutional and that the admission of certain evidence and jury instructions were not erroneous.
• United States v. Swiderski
  539 F.2d 854· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on the defendant for the entrapment defense and by refusing to give an entrapment instruction to one of the defendants. The court also found the instruction regarding the scrutiny of an informer's
• United States v. Larkin
  510 F.2d 13· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that corroboration of innocuous details from an informant's tip, which itself fails to meet the standards for reliability and dependability, does not establish probable cause for a vehicle search or arrest.
• United States v. Issod
  508 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admissibility of evidence depends on the validity of the California search, which requires further factual determination, and thus the case must be remanded.
• United States v. Bowman
  487 F.2d 1229· 10th Cir.· 1973-11-29 ·cited 44×
  The smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless search of a vehicle.
• United States v. Rothman
  492 F.2d 1260· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-27 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding that the appellant did not voluntarily consent to the search of his baggage, arguing the trial court's finding of voluntariness was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Fisch
  474 F.2d 1071· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the aural surveillance of defendants in a motel room did not violate their constitutional right to privacy, and the stops and searches of their vehicle were lawful.
• United States v. Castillo-Valencia
  917 F.2d 494· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the joint trial of ten co-defendants did not subject the appellants to compelling prejudice, and affirmed the district court's denial of their severance motion. It also affirmed the sentencing decisions regarding acceptance of responsibility, managerial role,
• United States v. Concepcion Mena
  863 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to dismiss, suppress, or compel production, nor in the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional findings, or comments made during closing arguments.
• United States v. Lance
  853 F.2d 1177· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, admission of evidence, judicial remarks, jury instructions, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Johnston
  784 F.2d 416· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on narcotics charges, holding that evidence seized under the plain view doctrine was admissible and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and evidence of prior bad acts did not prejudice the appellants.
• United States v. Snider
  720 F.2d 985· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 43×
  A prejudicial variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof at trial demonstrating multiple conspiracies requires reversal of the conspiracy convictions. However, convictions for possession with intent to distribute are affirmed if the evidence is str
• United States v. Kreimes
  649 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for stopping the appellant's truck and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the appellant's luggage, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Atterson
  926 F.2d 649· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for drug quantity, conspiracy, and other charges, and upholding the district court's evidentiary and procedural rulings.
• United States v. Auerbach
  913 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Auerbach's involvement in the drug conspiracy made him liable under the Travel Act for co-conspirators' interstate travel, and that Helish's convictions for conspiracy and possession were supported by sufficient evidence despite minor variances in the indictme
• United States v. Andrews Bruce Campbell
  874 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no plain error in the reasonable doubt instruction and that the entrapment and Sixth Amendment instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Middleton
  673 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed a substantive count of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds because the government failed to clearly limit its use of evidence in a prior prosecution.
• United States v. Lerma
  657 F.2d 786· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and that the indictment was not fundamentally defective.
• United States v. LAY
  644 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in excluding testimony regarding a key witness's prior inconsistent statements and motives, this error was harmless. The court also found the prosecutor's improper question about an unconvicted offense to be harmless error.
• United States v. Davis
  639 F.2d 239· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 42×
  The Sixth Amendment forbids excluding otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules against criminal defendants, and the trial court abused its discretion by excluding crucial character witnesses for the defense.
• United States v. Maskeny
  609 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the marijuana species defense was foreclosed by precedent, the warrantless search of the briefcase was a lawful border search, and the jury selection process did not violate constitutional or statutory requirements.
• United States v. Love
  599 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Powell
  587 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of prior convictions and a marihuana-smoking incident, along with the denial of a continuance for a material witness, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Race
  529 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the arrest and subsequent search were valid, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. Gordy
  526 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the premature discharge of the jury before a verdict on the second count, due to the judge's desire to catch a flight and a crowded docket, violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  498 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 42×
  The convictions for drug offenses and firearm charges are affirmed, but the sentences for Rodriguez and Vega are vacated due to plain error in the sentencing proceedings.
• United States v. Aurelio Lopez-Ortiz
  492 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the arrests were supported by probable cause based on a combination of an informer's tip and independent police investigation and observation, but the evidence was insufficient to convict Lopez-Ortiz.
• United States v. Fonseca
  490 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar incident to show knowledge and intent, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Ogden
  485 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the airline employee's initial search of the bag was not a governmental search subject to the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent warrantless search by a federal agent was justified by exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  888 F.2d 519· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a wife's apparent authority to consent to a search of a room does not extend to closed containers within that room, and that a defendant's waiver of jury trial, while procedurally deficient, was knowing and intelligent and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Long
  674 F.2d 848· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both appellants, finding no merit in their challenges to the Fourth Amendment issues, sufficiency of evidence, or trial conduct.
• United States v. Marshall
  609 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 41×
  The district judge erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress evidence without consulting the transcript of the magistrate's hearing, especially when rejecting the magistrate's recommendation.
• United States v. Goff
  847 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 40×
  The court clarified its prior opinion, correcting misleading language regarding double jeopardy vacaturs for certain counts of conspiracy to import and possess.
• United States v. Dotson
  817 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in amending the jury verdict ex parte, admitting the tax expert's testimony, admitting the hearsay document as a prior consistent statement, or denying the motion to suppress based on Dotson's reasonable expectation of privacy, t
• United States v. Gibbs
  813 F.2d 596· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the quantity of marijuana is an essential element of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(6) and must be alleged in the indictment to support a sentence under that provision.
• United States v. Baines
  812 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper.
• United States v. Gomez
  776 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 40×
  The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Antonio Reyes Espinoza for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting the substantive offense.
• United States v. Hudson
  717 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the jury instructions regarding aiding and abetting, exculpatory statements, and the refusal of a lesser included offense instruction were proper.