56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and not a seizure, and that Springer abandoned the suitcase, thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's proffered expert testimony regarding tape alteration and in admitting the government's authenticated tape recording, and that sentencing enhancements were pro
-
A defendant can be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence for a specific drug offense, such as cocaine, even if they did not know the exact type of drug involved, as long as they knew they were transporting a controlled substance.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found during the vehicle search, nor in refusing to suppress roadside statements, and that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act are constitutional and apply to all defendants, and that individual claims regarding jury selection, prosecutorial comments, and jury instructions
-
The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Coates beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the search of an abandoned hotel room and its contents did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that an agent's rough notes of an informant's tip are not 'statements' under Rule 26.2, routine biographical questions are permissible post-Miranda silence, and a prosecutor's comments on the lack of evidence for a defense theory do not impermissibly shift the burd
-
596 F.2d 169·
6th Cir.·
1979-04-13
·cited 17×
The court held that the air freight carrier's opening of a suspicious package constituted a private search, not subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Subsequent police seizure of the package was permissible under the plain view exception.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant failed to establish a cognizable class for his jury selection challenge and that his statutory claim regarding jury wheel refilling was procedurally deficient. The court also found the jury instruction on specific inte
-
The court held that the cocaine found in the defendant's bag was admissible evidence because its discovery was the result of a valid protective search for weapons under Terry v. Ohio, and the denial of the motion to disclose the informant's identity was proper as the informant wa
-
Michael Sampson appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to distribute after police found drugs in a fanny pack on a borrowed bicycle. The court reversed the conviction for cocaine possession with intent to sell, finding insufficient evidence of
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a 'missing witness' instruction and in applying a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury.
-
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentencing court's discretionary decisions regarding downward departures were not appealable.
-
Collins appealed her sentences for violating community control and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing the combined sentences exceeded the maximum permitted under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court agreed, finding that the 3.5 years incarceration followe
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior act evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements without required findings on the record constitutes reversible error. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct
-
The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the defendant's offense level upward for his role as an organizer in the drug conspiracy.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the money laundering conviction, Koller's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the government's conduct did not constitute outrageous conduct. Sentencing was affirmed.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences for conspiracy and related drug offenses, and dismissed one defendant's appeal regarding firearm possession.
-
The court affirmed the conviction on most counts, vacating the conspiracy conviction due to double jeopardy concerns, and found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's due process and equal protection rights were not violated by federal prosecution, the search warrant was valid, co-defendant testimony was admissible, jury instructions were adequate, and the sentence was properly calculated.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
-
The court held that the indictment's joinder of offenses was proper, certain extrinsic evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
-
The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in its definition and application of the deliberate ignorance standard, asserting that the evidence supported the jury instruction.
-
A defendant waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence for sentencing enhancements by failing to object to the factual basis in the district court, and such failure does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if it was a reasonable tactical decision.
-
The court held that a defendant's sentence may be based on reasonably foreseeable conduct of co-conspirators, but not on negotiated drug amounts if the defendant was not reasonably capable of producing them. A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on a gove
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
-
A jury's acquittal on a specific count does not prevent a sentencing court from considering the acquitted conduct if it is established by reliable evidence and relevant to the offense of conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, and that the giving of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was harmless error. The court al
-
The court held that the defendant's Miranda waiver, confession, and consent to search were voluntary, the admission of weapons was proper, the evidence was sufficient to prove predisposition, and the life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was a valid border search, his statements were voluntary, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that while the search of the luggage was valid and the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the use of an alias was improper without a findi
-
The court held that while the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the sentences imposed were improper because the district court failed to properly apply the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987 to offenses committed after its effective date.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possession with intent to distribute, and that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in jury selection under Batson.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by attributing a larger drug quantity to the defendant based on his admissions and evidence presented at sentencing.
-
The court held that while convictions are affirmed, sentences must be vacated and remanded for resentencing due to improper application of amended statutory provisions regarding supervised release.
-
The court's majority opinion incorrectly expands precedent to grant jail-time credit in situations not covered by existing law.
-
The court held that the jury empanelment was not a pretext to violate the Speedy Trial Act, any error regarding the Fifth Amendment was harmless, and the sentencing was correct.
-
The court held that the detention of the defendant's mail for a period of forty-eight hours over a weekend for a canine sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's identity and prior investigations was not an
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the defendant's train roomette and knapsack because the train's imminent departure and the likelihood of evidence removal created a reasonable necessity for immediate action.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in excluding Dawood Nusraty's statement that he was getting married, as it was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's state of mind and was relevant to the defense.
-
The court held that while the district court's pretrial detention order was substantively correct, it was procedurally infirm for failing to provide written findings of fact and a statement of reasons. The case is remanded for the district court to articulate its findings and rea
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for recusal, dismissal of the indictment, or suppression of evidence, and that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
-
-
Venue was properly laid in New Mexico under the doctrine of constructive possession, as the defendants retained the ability to control the suitcase even as it entered the state.
-
The court held that the roadblock, detention, and consents to search were constitutional and lawful, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of appending a written order to the pre-sentence repor