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. Ward
  961 F.2d 1526· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the initial encounter between law enforcement and the defendant on the train constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the evidence discovered and statements made thereafter were tainted and should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Vasquez
  953 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the residence and that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Lira
  936 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior smuggling attempt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Feinman
  930 F.2d 495· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in departing upward from the defendant's criminal history category based on factors already accounted for in the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Cruz
  882 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prior conviction for burglary of a habitation qualifies as a 'crime of violence' and a conviction for financing illegal drug transactions qualifies as a 'controlled substance offense' under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the acceptance of responsibility
• United States v. Crockett
  812 F.2d 626· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that marijuana seized from a field one-quarter mile from the residence was outside the curtilage and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, but that the indictment's failure to allege the quantity of marijuana meant the defendant could not receive a sentence f
• United States v. Garcia
  781 F.2d 422· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the stop and search of the defendant's truck were lawful, and his suppression hearing testimony was admissible at trial due to a stipulation. The court also vacated the special parole term as unauthorized by statute.
• United States v. Strawser
  739 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to quash the second indictment, as the government made no express or implied promises in the first plea agreement that would preclude prosecution for the offenses charged in the second indictment
• United States v. Erickson
  732 F.2d 788· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to object to the transponder installation because he failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the aircraft.
• United States v. Reed
  733 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the initial warrantless entry onto the C.D.Y. premises was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the subsequent searches and seizures were lawful.
• United States v. Cannington
  729 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on joinder, severance, co-conspirator statements, identification, discovery, prosecutorial comment, or sentencing.
• United States v. Kent
  691 F.2d 1376· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Customs Patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and board the vessel based on a corroborated informant's tip, and the discovery of marijuana was permissible under the plain view doctrine.
• United States v. Kemp
  690 F.2d 397· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that 21 U.S.C. § 881(b)(4) requires the seizure of a vehicle to be contemporaneous with the probable cause that justifies the seizure.
• United States v. Bustos-Guzman
  685 F.2d 1278· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the search was lawful.
• United States v. Wooten
  688 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for importation and possession, rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and interpreting the Speedy Trial Act's minimum trial period.
• United States v. Tercero
  640 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the loss of photographs did not warrant reversal, the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule in advance on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment.
• United States v. Wright
  588 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's vehicle was lawful because the officers had probable cause to believe it contained contraband.
• United States v. Kilgus
  571 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the FLIR system's unique identification of an aircraft was inadmissible evidence because it had not gained general acceptance in the scientific community.
• United States v. Hipolito Cruz Pagan
  537 F.2d 554· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit contained no material misstatements requiring suppression, the warrantless search of the van was justified under the automobile exception, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Woodard
  531 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the roving border patrol agent lacked the specific articulable facts necessary to form a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained illegal aliens, thus the stop was unlawful.
• United States v. Santibanez
  517 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that stopping vehicles at a permanent checkpoint for citizenship checks and searching a vehicle based on the odor of marijuana are constitutional.
• United States v. Morando-Alvarez
  520 F.2d 882· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendants' panicked flight and abandonment of the vehicle, coupled with their physical condition upon apprehension, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer joint possession of the marijuana found in the trunk.
• United States v. Gavic
  520 F.2d 1346· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 22×
  The majority erred in holding the affidavit sufficient to justify the search warrant.
• United States v. Henley
  502 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-09 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, finding no reversible error.
• United States v. Hal Findley Moore
  483 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage violated his Fourth Amendment rights, requiring reversal of the drug possession conviction, but affirmed the conviction for assaulting an officer, as the arrest was lawful despite being based on evidence from an unlawful s
• United States v. LEE
  483 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's alibi defense was irrelevant to the conspiracy charge, and the concurrent sentence doctrine rendered the alibi instruction issue moot for the substantive offense.
• United States v. Arroyave
  477 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a request to see a foreign consul is not equivalent to a request for counsel under Miranda, and that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt to sustain a conviction.
• United States v. Glory Walter Ushakow
  474 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony and evidence was proper, and any errors were either harmless or not plain error.
• United States v. Cohn
  472 F.2d 290· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was lawful due to exigent circumstances, even though the vehicle was unoccupied at the time.
• United States v. Elizondo
  920 F.2d 1308· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while the prosecution's questioning of a defendant regarding an accident report was improper and lacked a good faith factual basis, it did not constitute reversible error or plain error given the totality of the evidence. The court also found the abbreviated P
• United States v. Godoy
  821 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act by improperly extending the indictment period and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing reprosecution without prejudice.
• United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez
  821 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that video surveillance of a backyard, even if partially visible from public areas, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant, and that the government met the statutory requirements for obtaining such a warrant.
• United States v. Barragan
  793 F.2d 1255· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the admission of testimony regarding a radio conversation was not prejudicial, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence imposed did not violate due process.
• United States v. Florencio Ledezma-Hernandez
  729 F.2d 310· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while statements made after Miranda warnings and before counsel's assistance were inadmissible, their admission was harmless error because similar admissible statements were introduced. The court also found the evidence sufficient and the prosecutor's argument
• Cobb v. State
  378 So. 2d 82· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-12-18 ·cited 21×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  James Cobb appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana and methaqualone with intent to sell. The court affirms the marijuana conviction under the plain view doctrine but reverses the methaqualone conviction, holding that a briefcase requires a warrant to search even when
• Eli Scarlett v. State
  704 So. 2d 615· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-10-22 ·cited 20×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Scarlett's conviction for marijuana possession with intent to sell and drug paraphernalia possession. The court held that expert testimony regarding drug quantity and packaging as indicators of intent to sell is admissible, distinguish
• United States v. Curry
  977 F.2d 1042· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Eves
  932 F.2d 856· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that under the Sentencing Guidelines, the plain and ordinary meaning of "plant" includes marijuana cuttings with root balls, and that the district court did not err in counting them as plants for sentencing purposes.
• United States v. Rexford
  903 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that his constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines were foreclosed by precedent and that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce his offense level for a minor role or in imposing a special assessment.
• United States v. Errol Maynard
  888 F.2d 918· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the vessel was not stateless and therefore not subject to United States jurisdiction, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. DeFREITAS
  865 F.2d 80· 4th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 20×
  A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea must demonstrate a 'fair and just' reason, which includes showing counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that prejudice resulted.
• United States v. Alvarado
  806 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions and that any violations of the Doyle rule by the prosecutor constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Adams
  799 F.2d 665· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a trial judge's ex parte interview of a juror, while not ideal, did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights or constitute reversible error when post-verdict interviews with counsel present demonstrated no prejudice. The court also found prosecutorial
• United States v. Petz
  764 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the record did not clearly establish an unequivocal waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel, deferring the issue to a collateral proceeding.
• United States v. Mechanik
  735 F.2d 136· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 20×
  The majority erred in reversing conspiracy convictions based on a Rule 6(d) violation without considering demonstrable prejudice.
• United States v. Andreu
  715 F.2d 1497· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Customs patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search of the vessel and probable cause for the subsequent, more intrusive search.
• United States v. Elio Quesada-Rosadal
  685 F.2d 1281· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that prior inconsistent statements from a suppression hearing can be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Minis
  666 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-20 ·cited 20×
  The Court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established sufficient probable cause, and therefore the district court erred in suppressing the seized evidence.
• United States v. VAN Dyke
  643 F.2d 992· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the officers' surveillance location, within an exclusionary fence and close to the mowed lawn, constituted part of the curtilage, making the warrantless observation a Fourth Amendment violation.
• United States v. Bennie Carter
  613 F.2d 256· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and affirmed their convictions.