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. Woody
  567 F.2d 1353· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the odor of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search, but that summaries of undisclosed presentence report information must be sufficiently specific to allow defendants to rebut potentially erroneous material.
• United States v. Curtis
  562 F.2d 1153· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-12 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the installation and use of a transponder did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that probable cause existed for the search of a vehicle containing marijuana. A confession was deemed voluntary.
• Cisneros v. State
  678 So. 2d 888· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-08-21 ·cited 34×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Esperanza Cisneros was convicted of marijuana possession with intent to sell based primarily on testimony from Sergeant Hagler. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor made improper closing arguments that bolstered the officer's credibility by sugge
• United States v. Young
  909 F.2d 442· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's purse was justified by exigent circumstances, as officers had probable cause to believe she was fleeing with evidence.
• United States v. Galvan-Garcia
  872 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the admission of prior conviction evidence and subsequent references did not constitute plain error, the destruction of evidence was in good faith, and the sentencing enhancement was proper.
• United States v. Dupuy
  760 F.2d 1492· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a district court errs by accepting conceded Brady material and failing to disclose it or determine its discoverability. The prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland cannot be shifted to the court.
• United States v. Arnaldo Melendez-Gonzalez
  727 F.2d 407· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the roving border patrol agents lacked sufficient cause to justify the warrantless stop of the defendant's automobile, and the subsequent search was also illegal, rendering the conviction invalid.
• United States v. Escobar
  674 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of computer-generated information regarding a defendant's prior record and suspected drug smuggling activities constituted hearsay and improper use of prior offenses, requiring reversal of his conviction. However, the court found sufficient evide
• United States v. Merryman
  630 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the investigatory stop and subsequent search were lawful, and the admission of evidence of prior acts and the prosecutor's comments did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Elorduy
  612 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, entrapment, and unlawful firearm possession lacked merit.
• United States v. Wallace
  578 F.2d 735· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the federal prosecution did not violate the Petite policy and that the defendants' other challenges to their convictions lacked merit.
• United States v. Hansen
  569 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments for reversal were unpersuasive, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• United States v. Groves
  571 F.2d 450· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government's filing of a marihuana indictment after the appellant asserted his statutory rights under the Speedy Trial Act created an appearance of vindictiveness, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Vandemark
  522 F.2d 1019· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-10 ·cited 34×
• United States v. Cantu
  504 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a Border Patrol checkpoint located seventy miles from the border was a valid border search, but that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession for two of the three defendants.
• United States v. Diaz-Carreon
  915 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knowingly imported and possessed marijuana with intent to distribute, and that prosecutorial comments, while improper, did not substantially affect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• United States v. ROY
  869 F.2d 1427· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the existence of probable cause for a search is determined by an objective standard based on the totality of the circumstances, not solely on the subjective belief of law enforcement officers.
• United States v. Gavin Anthony McBEAN
  861 F.2d 1570· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 33×
  A defendant's unequivocal disavowal of ownership of luggage negates a subjective expectation of privacy, precluding a Fourth Amendment challenge to its search.
• United States v. Savage
  701 F.2d 867· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the government's conduct in providing an opportunity to commit drug offenses did not violate due process, and that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence and motions for a mistrial.
• United States v. Benavides
  596 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding with a trial in absentia without sufficient inquiry into rescheduling possibilities and that the Rule 11 hearings were defective for failing to personally explain the nature of the charges.
• United States v. Kilrain
  566 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that post-indictment conversations with an informant without counsel present, minor errors in search warrant affidavits, and alleged Speedy Trial Plan violations did not warrant reversal, especially when no prejudice was shown and evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Bullock
  551 F.2d 1377· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the 16-day delay caused by a pre-trial motion to sever was excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act and the District Court's Plan, and that the trial court did not err in its discovery rulings or jury instructions.
• Hartmut Alfred Klein v. United States
  472 F.2d 847· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a border search is reasonable without probable cause and that a co-conspirator can testify about the defendant's own acts and declarations, even before the conspiracy is independently established.
• United States v. Baker
  905 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 32×
  A drug conspiracy is not a proper predicate offense for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) conviction, and a 'continuing series of violations' requires at least two substantive offenses, not three. Evidence was insufficient to convict Wireman of conspiracy.
• United States v. DOE
  860 F.2d 488· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence regarding Honduran government authorization for boarding was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24), and prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, while improper, did not constitute reversible error given the o
• United States v. Gregorio Manriquez Arbizo
  833 F.2d 244· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting closing arguments, that a prosecutor's improper comment was harmless error, and that the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was appropriate and sufficiently explained.
• United States v. Silvestri
  790 F.2d 186· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on various narcotics charges, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, Fifth Amendment claims, jury instructions, cross-examination limitations, and admission of coconspirator statements.
• United States v. Marsh
  747 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 32×
• United States v. Catalino Collazo
  732 F.2d 1200· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that allowing jury use of unverified transcripts with cautionary instructions was not an abuse of discretion, but a warrantless search of a home requires suppression of evidence absent exigent circumstances or valid consent.
• United States v. Russell
  717 F.2d 518· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance for defense counsel to present testimony on a collateral issue, nor in refusing a requested jury instruction that was more of a jury argument.
• United States v. Thompson
  710 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's forced entry into the vessel's cabin for a document and safety inspection was reasonable under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), even without suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore the suppressed evidence should not have been suppressed.
• United States v. Ward
  696 F.2d 1315· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Prows' appeal must be remanded for the district court to determine excusable neglect for his late filing, and that Ward's double jeopardy and due process claims lack merit.
• United States v. MacPHERSON
  664 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a border search of a vessel within one-half mile of the U.S. coast is permissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict one defendant but not the other.
• State v. Brider
  386 So. 2d 818· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-07-18 ·cited 32×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Florida appeals the dismissal of charges against Brider for possession of cannabis with intent to sell. The trial court dismissed based on entrapment as a matter of law, concluding that because the government supplied the marijuana, the defendant could not possess it. The appella
• United States v. Gramlich
  551 F.2d 1359· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause, but the introduction of the seized evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Tuley
  546 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the pickup camper and the subsequent search of the mobile home were fruits of an illegal search, lacking probable cause based on an uncorroborated informant's tip.
• United States v. Walker
  522 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 32×
  The court granted the government's petition for rehearing, withdrew prior opinions, and affirmed the convictions, finding the vehicle stops and searches were justified.
• United States v. Palazzo
  488 F.2d 942· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the search of the defendants' stowed luggage was unconstitutional as it lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances, but Viagran lacked standing to challenge the search of his co-defendants' luggage.
• United States v. Byrd
  483 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-07 ·cited 32×
  A warrantless search of a vehicle by roving border patrol agents 45 miles from the Mexican border, without probable cause or consent, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Belmer Lewis Wright, Jr.
  476 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 32×
  The search of the vehicle was permissible under the border search doctrine, as immigration officers had reasonable suspicion to believe it contained aliens or contraband.
• United States v. Johnson
  469 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, given the defendant's active role in moving the contraband.
• United States v. Pasha Alamin
  895 F.2d 1335· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 31×
  A district court cannot depart downward from sentencing guidelines based on substantial assistance without a government motion, and a defendant cannot appeal a sentence within the guidelines unless it violates law or misapplies guidelines.
• United States v. Medina
  887 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana and possession with intent to distribute marihuana.
• United States v. MacDOUGALL
  790 F.2d 1135· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that it, not the jury, should decide double jeopardy claims. It also found that the evidence established separate conspiracies, thus rejecting the appellants' double jeopardy defense based on prior prosecutions.
• United States v. Mitchell
  769 F.2d 1544· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that dismissal of an indictment sealed beyond the statute of limitations requires a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant, not presumed prejudice.
• MacHin v. Louie L. Wainwright
  758 F.2d 1431· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the late disclosure of the word "silencio" did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Romero-Galue
  757 F.2d 1147· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the "customs waters" definition in the Marijuana on the High Seas Act can extend beyond twelve miles via treaty or arrangement, allowing prosecution of foreign nationals on foreign vessels.
• United States v. Lopez
  564 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the border patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle, violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Hawkins
  934 F.3d 1251· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-20 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed convictions for cocaine distribution against Hawkins and McCree, finding that the government's lead case agent committed plain error by providing extensive improper expert testimony that speculated about the meaning of intercepted communications, int
• United States v. Morehead
  959 F.2d 1489· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 30×
  The court should reverse Mr. Hill's conviction because the jury's acquittal on underlying drug offenses renders the conviction for using a firearm during those offenses legally inconsistent and unsupported by sufficient evidence.