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. Sanchez-Robles
  927 F.2d 1070· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a 'deliberate ignorance' instruction was inappropriate because the evidence only supported actual knowledge or complete lack of knowledge, not conscious avoidance of the truth. The court reversed the conviction due to the improper instruction.
• United States v. Erwin
  875 F.2d 268· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-16 ·cited 30×
  A passenger has standing to challenge the legality of a traffic stop, but lacks standing to challenge the search of a vehicle absent a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Baresh
  790 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, restrictions on cross-examination, contempt citation of counsel, or in refusing to grant a mistrial. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and sentencing did not violate the double jeopa
• United States v. Roberts
  747 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and separate convictions for manufacturing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute are permissible under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
• United States v. Leon
  739 F.2d 885· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Conrado Caballero
  712 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute, the prosecutor's closing argument was permissible, and the court did not err in denying severance or a James hearing.
• United States v. Robertson
  659 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless.
• United States v. Moreno
  588 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that searches and arrests were lawful.
• United States v. Herring
  582 F.2d 535· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the stop and search of the truck were based on probable cause, the admission of a witness statement did not violate discovery agreements, severance was not required, the arrest and search of Chapman's motel room were lawful, and in-court identifications were r
• United States v. Meliton Garza, Jr.
  574 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to submit defense exhibits to the jury, which were crucial for assessing witness credibility, thus reversing the conviction of one defendant. The court affirmed the conviction of the other defendant, finding su
• United States v. Smith
  574 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 30×
  The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable collateral order. The RICO charges are not the same offense as prior drug convictions under the Blockburger test.
• United States v. Mutchler
  559 F.2d 955· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that allowing selected jurors to sit on similar cases between jury selection and trial renders peremptory challenges meaningless and requires reversal of convictions.
• United States v. Vince Joseph Brischetto
  538 F.2d 208· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, as the evidence presented a rational basis for the jury to acquit on the greater charge while convicting on the lesser.
• United States v. Lovenguth
  514 F.2d 96· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the stop and search of the pickup truck were legal, affirming the convictions.
• Harris v. State
  954 So. 2d 1260· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-04-27 ·cited 29×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had actual or constructive possession of the cocaine found in the brown bag, reversing the trafficking conviction.
• United States v. Laird
  948 F.2d 444· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not newly discovered evidence under Rule 33 when the appellant was aware of the facts at the time of trial. The court also affirmed the sentencing decisions.
• United States v. Rubio-Rivera
  917 F.2d 1271· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the referral to a secondary checkpoint was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the defendant's consent to search was not tainted.
• United States v. Rigoberto Euceda-Hernandez
  768 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by suppressing the defendants' post-arrest statements as a sanction for delayed discovery under Rule 16, as a continuance would have been a less severe and sufficient remedy.
• United States v. Saperstein
  723 F.2d 1221· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the narcotic agent's encounter with the defendant constituted an invalid seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Bryant
  671 F.2d 450· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 29×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2275 applies to any United States vessel engaged in commerce, including private vessels used for transporting contraband, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants of tampering with the vessel.
• United States v. Solomon
  528 F.2d 88· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent search of the vehicle were valid under both California and federal law, justifying the denial of the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Fabregat
  902 F.2d 331· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the investigatory stop was based on reasonable suspicion and that considering the defendant's family wealth in determining a fine was permissible.
• United States v. Hays
  899 F.2d 515· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 28×
  The court should reverse the district court's sentence because it was not at or near the maximum term authorized by statute for a career offender.
• United States v. Audelio Arzola-Amaya
  867 F.2d 1504· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants and that the trial court did not err in denying requests to poll the jury regarding mid-trial publicity.
• United States v. Holm
  836 F.2d 1119· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs found in the house.
• United States v. Arnoldo Moreno-Hinojosa
  804 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while prior convictions were admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Bent-Santana
  774 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 28×
  Assent to board and search a foreign flag vessel by a duly authorized official of that foreign government, communicated verbally or in writing to appropriate United States Department of State personnel, is adequate to meet the terms of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1401(j), supporting a convicti
• United States v. Moscatiello
  771 F.2d 589· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated and that the searches and seizures were supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Futch
  637 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, finding the two conspiracies charged were separate offenses.
• United States v. Jefferson
  569 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defense counsel's request to question jurors about interim jury service between selection and trial.
• United States v. Morrison
  546 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a motorist's response to a signal to stop cannot retroactively justify the stop itself, and absent other indicia of illegal activity, proximity to the border alone does not create reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Diaz
  538 F.2d 461· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the failure to give advance limiting instructions on coconspirator statements was not plain error because the coconspirator later testified directly, and the independent evidence was sufficient. It also held that one defendant was improperly sentenced on two c
• United States v. Cunningham
  529 F.2d 884· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that cross-examination based on unreliable hearsay and suspicion, even if drawing negative answers, is prejudicial when the defense is solely entrapment. It also held that increased sentences after withdrawal of guilty pleas, based on a fuller understanding of the
• United States v. del Bosque
  523 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Border Patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle, and the stop did not occur at a functional equivalent of the border.
• United States v. Laca
  499 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-28 ·cited 28×
  Convictions are affirmed, but sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly considered defendants' lack of repentance and refusal to confess as factors in sentencing, violating their Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Phillips
  496 F.2d 1395· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the search was valid and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of knowing possession by both appellants.
• United States v. Ellsworth E. Lonabaugh, III
  494 F.2d 1257· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was unlawful because no exception to the warrant requirement, including exigent circumstances or the border search doctrine, applied.
• United States v. Hall
  488 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that conversations involving land-line telephones are wire communications under Title III, requiring a warrant, while radio-telephone conversations without land-line involvement are oral communications, requiring a reasonable expectation of privacy for suppression.
• United States v. Wilkerson
  478 F.2d 813· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-11 ·cited 28×
  Airline searches conducted pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations are governmental searches subject to the Fourth Amendment, even if performed by airline personnel.
• United States v. Robert B. French (90-6222)
  974 F.2d 687· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the stops and detentions were objectively reasonable, French's consent to search was voluntary and effective as to Foster, the admission of prior bad acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to convict Caldwell, and Caldwell w
• United States v. Bernard
  757 F.2d 1439· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the warrantless protective sweep of the defendant's curtilage was justified under exigent circumstances, and the marihuana found in plain view was lawfully seized. The court also affirmed the sentence, finding that the judge could consider evidence related to
• United States v. Wables
  731 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a trial court has discretion to fashion remedies for untimely Jencks Act material production, beyond striking testimony or declaring a mistrial, if the government acted in good faith and prejudice is curable. The court also affirmed the admissibility of busine
• United States v. Struyf
  701 F.2d 875· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the government's informant tactics did not violate due process and that the speedy trial rights of the defendants were not violated.
• United States v. Edmundo Howard-Arias
  679 F.2d 363· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the two convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 955a(a) and 955a(d) did not violate the double jeopardy clause because Congress intended them to define separate offenses.
• United States v. Lamartine Nazien
  504 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellants were guilty of marijuana possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval
  910 F.2d 1234· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's contradictory statements, coupled with possession of the vehicle, were sufficient to infer guilty knowledge, and that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred, it did not rise to the level of reversible error due to cautionary instructions.
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Angelos Markopoulos
  848 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while some evidence was improperly admitted and jury instructions were flawed, these errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Valles-Valencia
  811 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.