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. Delroy Thomas Davidson
  768 F.2d 1266· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the district court erred in failing to hold a Jackson v. Denno hearing on the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, this error was harmless in light of the defendant's subsequent confession and the sufficiency of the evidence.
• United States v. McCABE
  720 F.2d 951· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the failure to give a cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony was an error, it was harmless because the jury was otherwise made aware of the accomplices' interests and received a general credibility instruction.
• United States v. Sudderth
  681 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed LeCompte's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute the first marihuana load, but reversed his conviction for the second load due to insufficient evidence. Sudderth's convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Horacio Saimiento-Rozo
  676 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire, that sufficient evidence supported the importation convictions, and that the Miranda warnings given to McDonald were adequate.
• United States v. Hayes
  653 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from the vessel search, nor in excluding certain testimony regarding the destination of the marijuana, but reversed the conviction on Count II due to prosecutorial misstatements of
• United States v. Gagnon
  635 F.2d 766· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search warrants were validly issued based on probable cause from a citizen informant, the agents' continued presence on the property was justified by exigent circumstances, and the search of the defendant's truck incident to his lawful arrest was proper.
• United States v. Lavonne Hodges
  606 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's membership in the conspiracy and that he was vicariously liable for the substantive offense committed by his coconspirators. The denial of his motion to suppress was also affirmed.
• United States v. Kleinschmidt
  596 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence seized from the vessel was admissible and sufficient to support the convictions, as the stop and search were lawful and the substance was identified.
• United States v. Efren Fontecha
  576 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 26×
  The warrantless search of a suitcase in a vehicle at a permanent border checkpoint is permissible if supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Almand
  565 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the stop of the vehicle was unlawful, and the seized marijuana should have been suppressed as evidence.
• United States v. Rockne P. Venema
  563 F.2d 1003· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The use of a trained narcotics detection dog to sniff the air outside a rented storage locker, with the owner's consent, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient.
• United States v. Alexander
  559 F.2d 1339· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that probable cause existed for the warrantless stops and searches based on the totality of the circumstances, including suspicious vehicle movements and informant tips, and that disclosure of the informant's identity was not required.
• United States v. Branch
  545 F.2d 177· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of appellant Garrison's shoulder bag was not authorized by the premises search warrant and that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, thus the evidence seized should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Estrada
  526 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the stop of the appellant's vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and therefore the subsequent search and seizure were legal.
• United States v. Christian
  505 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for importing and possessing marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the appellants' navigational course did not invalidate the importation charge.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  497 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an extremely congested docket, if not caused by neglect, can constitute 'exceptional circumstances' justifying a delay beyond the time limits set by a Rule 50(b) speedy trial plan.
• United States v. Tashman
  478 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that secret proceedings from which defendants and their counsel were excluded, and the government's failure to disclose a plea agreement with a key witness, resulted in substantial prejudice and violated due process, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Clay
  476 F.2d 1211· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error, and the denial of the motion for a bill of particulars and a new trial were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Anderson
  468 F.2d 1280· 10th Cir.· 1972-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was lawful due to probable cause, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
• Kutzorik v. State
  891 So. 2d 645· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-01-28 ·cited 25×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Melinda Kutzorik appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence of cannabis found during a warrantless search of her home. The court reversed, holding that the police conducted an illegal seizure without reasonable suspicion when they appeared at her door late at night wi
• United States v. Elkins
  774 F.2d 530· 1st Cir.· 1985-10-09 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in finding plain error and in distinguishing between defendants regarding the harmlessness of the error.
• United States v. Lopez
  761 F.2d 632· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 25×
  The concurring judge believes the appellees had a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus standing to challenge the search.
• United States v. Kelly
  749 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Evasio Garcia of conspiracy charges, reversing his conviction. The court affirmed the convictions of the other appellants, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error regarding their other claims.
• United States v. Gollwitzer
  697 F.2d 1357· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the initial stop and inquiry of a vessel on inland waters by Customs officers, without reasonable suspicion, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and subsequent boarding and search were justified.
• United States v. Sentovich
  677 F.2d 834· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to cross-examine an affiant before a search warrant is issued unless they allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, and that the odor of marijuana is not material evidence to a conviction for possession with i
• United States v. Odneal
  565 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-05 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's detention of the vessel was justified based on observed safety hazards and the need to check registration, and that probable cause for the search arose from the detected odor of marihuana.
• United States v. Soria
  519 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-22 ·cited 25×
• United States v. Munoz
  16 F.3d 1116· 11th Cir.· 1994-03-17 ·cited 24×
  Eight defendants were convicted of marijuana importation, conspiracy, and possession with intent to distribute following an unsuccessful attempt to offload approximately 18,000 pounds of marijuana from a tugboat (the Turtola) into fast boats in the Gulf of Mexico. The appellants
• United States v. Valdez-Gonzalez
  957 F.2d 643· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge argues that a district court cannot depart downward from sentencing guidelines based on the defendants' socioeconomic status or perceived disparities in plea agreements.
• United States v. Abel Garcia
  917 F.2d 1370· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that any discovery violations were harmless and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, with the substantive possession conviction affirmed under the Pinkerton doctrine.
• United States v. Vidal-Hungria
  794 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the captain's convictions, finding no double jeopardy, but reversed the crew members' convictions due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Roberts
  779 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Navy's involvement in the drug interdiction did not require dismissal of the indictment or suppression of evidence, and the destruction of the vessel did not warrant suppression of secondary evidence.
• United States v. Fermin Enrique Bergouignan
  764 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 24×
  The court remanded the Speedy Trial Act claims for Bergouignan and Godoy to the district court for a determination of excludable days, while affirming Simone's convictions.
• United States v. Punch
  722 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 24×
  A district court's failure to address a timely asserted conflict of interest by counsel, including refusing to allow withdrawal or hold required hearings, violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Eusebio Whittaker Bent
  707 F.2d 1190· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence seized from the vessel, admitted co-conspirator statements, denied severance motions, admitted extrinsic evidence, allowed cross-examination on prior drug smuggling, and gave a proper supplemental
• United States v. Willem Michell Kupper and Duane Conrad Goode
  693 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the magistrate had probable cause to authorize the installation of an electronic tracking device (beeper) in the aircraft, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Parks
  684 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that neither defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the aircraft sufficient to challenge the installation and monitoring of the beeper, as they failed to establish ownership, proprietary rights, or legitimate possession of the plane.
• United States v. Gaertner
  583 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely, and that while some constitutional claims are not barred by a guilty plea, the defendant's specific claims of double jeopardy, prosecution under an unconstitutional statute, unconstitutional plea bargaining, and manifest injust
• United States v. Martinez
  562 F.2d 633· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish that the conspiracy charged in the Texas indictment was the same as the one charged in the Oklahoma indictment, thus the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the prosecution.
• United States v. Riebschlaeger
  528 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that prior service on similar cases by jurors does not create implied bias, and evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute.
• United States v. Rand Albert Solmes
  527 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the search of the boat in Mission Bay was a lawful border search because the bay was a functional equivalent of the border and the boat had recently traveled in foreign waters.
• United States v. Peltier
  500 F.2d 985· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Almeida-Sanchez decision articulated a new constitutional rule, which should be applied prospectively, not retroactively.
• United States v. Troise
  483 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress and the motion for mistrial were proper, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Kiffer
  477 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as applied to marijuana, is constitutional, and its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance is not irrational or arbitrary.
• State v. Javonte L. Wimberly
  988 So. 2d 116· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-07-25 ·cited 23×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The appellate court reversed an order suppressing cannabis and statements, finding the trial court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the legality of a traffic stop for alleged illegal window tint.
• United States v. DOE
  878 F.2d 1546· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 23×
  Statements made by appellants regarding their citizenship prior to Miranda warnings were admissible because the inquiry was part of an identification procedure permitted as an exception to Miranda, necessitated by the circumstances, and would have been discovered eventually.
• United States v. Smith
  797 F.2d 836· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the initial warrantless search of the aircraft was valid due to probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the subsequent seizure of contraband was permissible under the plain view doctrine. Furthermore, even if the initial search were deemed illegal, suffi
• United States v. Murray
  753 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Schauble
  647 F.2d 113· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the defendant did not make the required substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.
• United States v. Smith
  588 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the jury selection procedure used did not constitute substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, and that Smith's entrapment defense claims lacked merit. However, the court reversed Lee's conviction due to an improper jury instructio