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. Ira Eugene Borchardt
  698 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning did not deny a fair trial, the admission of co-conspirators' guilty pleas was permissible with a limiting instruction, and consecutive sentences for conspiracy to import/distribute and for importing/possessing with intent to distr
• United States v. Singer
  687 F.2d 1135· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial judge's repeated remarks and interventions, which created an appearance of unfairness and favoritism towards the prosecution, warranted reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. D'Angelo
  598 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a jury's note questioning a defendant's guilt, even if suggesting a misunderstanding of the law, cannot be used to impeach a general verdict of guilty, as the jury's deliberative process is protected from judicial inquiry.
• United States v. Coplen
  541 F.2d 211· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that visual observation into an aircraft is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and a warrantless search of the aircraft and seizure of contraband were justified by exigent circumstances. The denial of motions to suppress and for acquittal were also affirmed.
• United States v. Holmes
  521 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 40×
  The installation of an electronic tracking device on a motor vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant. Evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'.
• United States v. LEE
  506 F.2d 111· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded for supplementation on factual issues regarding an addict-informant's testimony before a final decision on conviction.
• Paccione v. State
  698 So. 2d 252· Fla.· 1997-08-21 ·cited 39×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  A person cannot be separately convicted and punished for both possession of marijuana with intent to sell and simple possession of the same marijuana.
• Kunta Muwwakil v. State
  435 So. 2d 304· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-28 ·cited 39×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of marijuana with intent to sell after a drug raid on his apartment. The court affirmed the trafficking conviction but reversed the conviction and sentence for possession
• United States v. Telesforo Ray Gomez
  529 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 39×
  The court adheres to the result of the main opinion but expresses concern over the admission of hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Cyzewski
  484 F.2d 509· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the search of checked luggage based on mere suspicion, without probable cause, violated Fourth Amendment standards.
• United States v. Uriel Lara-Velasquez
  919 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence supported a jury instruction on deliberate ignorance, but the district court erred by concluding that a defendant's rehabilitative potential was irrelevant to sentencing within the applicable guideline range.
• United States v. Harris
  903 F.2d 770· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the conviction, forfeiture, and sentence, finding no error in the Travel Act violation evidence, search warrant validity, expert testimony, admission of evidence, or sentencing.
• United States v. Morgan
  835 F.2d 79· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a conspiracy, but sufficient for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Pforzheimer
  826 F.2d 200· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 38×
  Federal law, not state constitutional law, governs the admissibility of evidence in a federal prosecution, even if the investigation was conducted solely by state officials. The use of a disjunctive jury interrogatory regarding guilt was harmless error in this case.
• United States v. Edwards
  777 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the indictments were timely filed and properly sealed, and that the tax evasion and false filing charges were adequately pleaded.
• United States v. Graziano
  710 F.2d 691· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a defendant's severance claim based on a co-defendant's silence fails without a showing of compelling prejudice from antagonistic defenses, and that a conviction under 21 U.S.C.A. § 848 for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is supported by evidence
• United States v. Clemente Julio-Diaz
  678 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the vessel was of United States registry and that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana were valid.
• United States v. Streifel
  665 F.2d 414· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to the high seas and that consent of foreign governments cannot legitimize unconstitutional searches.
• United States v. Dewayne Lee Ratcliffe
  550 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, though later inadmissible, did not taint the convictions given ample independent evidence, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
• United States v. Chadwick
  532 F.2d 773· 1st Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that opening the footlocker in the JFK building did not violate Machado's Fourth Amendment rights because agents had probable cause.
• United States v. Lara
  517 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a stop based on reasonable suspicion was lawful, and the subsequent discovery of contraband in plain view provided probable cause for a search.
• United States v. Mollier
  853 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 37×
  The court held that non-mutual collateral estoppel does not apply in criminal cases, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy.
• United States v. Evelio Sarda-Villa
  760 F.2d 1232· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 37×
  The court held that appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in hidden fuel tanks and that the search was reasonable under the border search exception.
• United States v. Nabors
  707 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the destruction of contraband evidence did not require suppression of testimony absent a showing that independent testing would likely produce favorable evidence, and that evidence of the defendant's pre-arrest silence in response to a private insurance inquir
• United States v. Sanjuana Ruiz COX
  536 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the admission of prior offenses, particularly those related to prostitution and immigration violations, was unduly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Newton
  891 F.2d 944· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or claims of governmental misconduct.
• United States v. Ayala
  887 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and for possession with intent to distribute, marihuana.
• United States v. Sciarrino
  884 F.2d 95· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act permits the use of hearsay evidence in determining sentence calculations under the guidelines, provided it does not constitute misinformation of constitutional magnitude.
• United States v. Snyder
  872 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting a deceased witness's grand jury testimony without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, the error was harmless because the defendant later corroborated key parts of the testimony. The court also found no plain er
• United States v. Romero-Reyna
  867 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded the case for a hearing on the Batson challenge regarding the jury selection process.
• United States v. Dillard Earl Watson
  866 F.2d 381· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and weapons counts was harmless error, and the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were not an impermissible comment on the defendant's right to remain silent.
• United States v. Rinchack
  820 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for a government-funded psychiatric expert and for the attendance of witnesses at government expense, as the requests were untimely or the testimony would have been cumulative.
• United States v. Joe Dean Swift (86-1079)
  809 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, severance was not required due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, and the admission of evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Polowichak
  783 F.2d 410· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the entire trial, adequately conveyed the requirement of specific intent for the Travel Act convictions, and thus there was no plain error.
• United States v. Marino Sanchez Martinez
  700 F.2d 1358· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the stopping, boarding, and seizure of the vessel were lawful, the United States had jurisdiction, the admission of a foreign document was proper, and the failure to give a specific cautionary instruction was harmless error.
• United States v. Capo
  693 F.2d 1330· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Romero
  692 F.2d 699· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence seized from Sena's home, marijuana seized from Romero's pocket, revolvers seized from Romero's van, or in admitting Romero's incriminating statements for impeachment purposes.
• United States v. Stuart-Caballero
  686 F.2d 890· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and that their constitutional and statutory challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Seni
  662 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and importation, and the defendants' Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges were without merit.
• United States v. Maher
  645 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on sufficiently corroborated information, and the admission of opinion testimony regarding modus operandi was proper.
• United States v. Pruett
  551 F.2d 1365· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the seizure of the vehicle containing marijuana was unlawful, requiring suppression of that evidence.
• United States v. Vasquez
  534 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedures, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Jaime-Barrios
  494 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents were legally justified in stopping the appellants' vehicles based on a 'founded suspicion'.
• United States v. Storm
  480 F.2d 701· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle 55 miles inland was unlawful because the record lacked sufficient facts to establish reasonable suspicion that the vehicle had crossed the border or contained contraband.
• United States v. Walker
  772 F.2d 1172· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen evidence to allow the defendant to testify.
• United States v. Loyd
  743 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in not dismissing Count V against David and Hood due to double jeopardy, and that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard under the Jencks Act, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• United States v. Castro
  723 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a statement made in response to an express, accusatory question during a custodial interrogation is inadmissible if Miranda warnings were not given, regardless of whether the response was directly responsive to the question.
• United States v. Kubiak
  704 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all three appellants, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to suppress, dismissals under the Speedy Trial Act, sufficiency of evidence, or Brady Act claims.
• United States v. Davis
  656 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the jury instruction did not constitute plain error, that multiple sentences for simultaneous possession of different drugs are authorized by Congress, but that the sentence imposed for marijuana possession exceeded statutory limits.
• United States v. Sixto Mireles
  570 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the prosecutor's comments, or the sufficiency of the evidence.