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 district court must re-evaluate its denial of the defendant's speedy trial motion in light of the "reasonably necessary" time standard established in United States v. Mitchell, as the record lacks sufficient justification for the extended delay.
-
-
The court held that the district court's entrapment instruction, which required the defendant to admit guilt to the charged acts as a prerequisite to claiming entrapment, constituted plain error requiring reversal.
-
The court held that the trial court's admonition regarding perjury did not deny due process, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the sentence disparity was not substantial enough to require explanation.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of the premises enhancement but vacated and remanded for resentencing on the supervised release conditions that were not orally pronounced.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy and firearms charges against the appellants and upholding the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction and that the district court did not err in calculating the sentence, including considering acquitted conduct and hearsay testimony.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the district judge did not err in vacating the magistrate's order compelling the informant's attendance, and the judge did not err in refusing to suppress evidence or statements.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district judge's questioning did not constitute plain error.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants but remanded for the district court to make written findings regarding disputed facts in the presentence report for one defendant.
-
A defendant's rehabilitative efforts can warrant a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines in an appropriate case, and the district court's findings adequately supported such a departure here.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the denial of due process claims, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing calculations.
-
The court affirmed conspiracy convictions and sentences for Perfetto and Ball, vacated CCE convictions for Holt and Perfetto, and vacated Holt's obstruction of justice sentence for a new hearing.
-
The court held that the district court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for the obstruction offense when it had already enhanced the underlying drug offense level, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
-
The court held that the admission of a defendant's prior drug conviction was permissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to establish knowledge, even if propensity was a factor in the inference.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, but the concurring opinion questions the sufficiency of coded conversations as evidence and analyzes the ambiguity in sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
-
The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error, and the limitation on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The en banc court held that even if the agent's actions constituted a search, it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no plain error in the prosecutor's argumen
-
The court held that the defendant's warrantless arrest and the subsequent search of his car were lawful, and that the prosecutor's statements and the admission of the defendant's statement were not prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knowingly possessed cocaine with intent to distribute or voluntarily participated in a conspiracy to do so.
-
The court held that cocaine seized pursuant to a warrant was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt for drug conspiracy and distribution. The court also affirmed a sentence enhancement for firearm possession during a drug offense.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the trial court did not err in denying production of documents used to refresh a witness's recollection, the finding regarding the quantity of drugs involved in a larger conspiracy was not clearly erroneou
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and the life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court held that an upward departure from sentencing based solely on the large quantity of drugs involved was impermissible when the Sentencing Guidelines already accounted for such quantities.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, admitting the tape recording and transcript, or applying sentencing enhancements, affirming the conviction and sentence.
-
The court held that there was no impermissible variance between the charge and proof, sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and the weight of the beeswax-cocaine mixture was correctly used for sentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and did not prejudice the defendant, thus not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the admission of certain testimony and prosecutorial comments did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Ocampo's convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, but the search warrant was supported by probable cause and the convictions and sentences of Arango and Donato were affirmed.
-
The court held that the search of an employee was consensual under company policy, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute drugs in a prison context, and a witness's brief mention of an informant did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned his Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the luggage by disclaiming ownership, thus validating the warrantless search based on third-party consent.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on directed verdicts, severance, hearsay, and jury instructions.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion and the sentence imposed, finding the encounter voluntary and the sentence within statutory limits.
-
The court held that the district court's findings regarding the officers' knowledge of the defendant's association with Bitti were clearly erroneous, and the initial encounter likely constituted a seizure, requiring further examination of the stop's justification and consent's vo
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in dismissing a juror and instructing the remaining jury to begin deliberations anew, as the juror's fear, stemming from an encounter outside his home, rendered him unable to provide a fair and impartial verdict.
-
The court held that the investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the search of the bag was consensual, and the Miranda warnings given to Gonzalez, though imperfectly administered, were sufficient.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the suspects and a reasonable belief that the suspects were dangerous, justifying the search of the van.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that the challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines, jury selection, jury instructions, and the denial of the suppression motion were unavailing.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm during a drug offense, as the evidence supported the finding that the defendant knew the weapon was present and connected to the criminal activity.
-
The court held that consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for multiple firearms used in a single drug trafficking offense violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, but affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the underlying convictions.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of drug offenses and that his prior conviction qualified as a felony for career offender sentencing purposes.
-
The court held that the district court erred in interpolating between sentencing levels and must determine the specific drug quantity. However, the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional and apply to the defendant's conduct.
-
-
The court held that evidence of prior bad acts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible under the plain view doctrine and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and the sentencing was proper.
-
Retrial on severed marijuana counts is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the severance was manifestly necessary due to improper joinder, and the defendants did not waive their rights by seeking a complete severance.
-
The court held that the defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the locked suitcases, thus he could not challenge the legality of the search.
-
The dissenting judge believes the government met tests to excuse the absence of a search warrant and would remand for further hearing on the validity of an invitation to search.
-
The court held that the electronic surveillance was properly authorized, the information was not stale, and the necessity requirement was met. It also held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a car trunk not belonging to him.
-
The admission of drug courier profile testimony was harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt, and sentencing challenges were without merit.