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 government's conduct was not so outrageous as to violate due process, the district court's clarification of 'fronting' did not constructively amend the indictment, and the court correctly determined it lacked discretion to depart below the statutory minimu
-
The court held that the schoolyard provision of federal drug laws applies to a defendant who possesses drugs within 1,000 feet of a school with the intent to distribute those drugs at any location, not just within 1,000 feet of a school.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute heroin. However, the court reversed and remanded the importation conviction due
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to play a Spanish language tape recording to the jury, in omitting a lesser-included offense instruction, or in admitting hearsay statements offered to explain the DEA's conduct.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial and the conviction, finding no prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violation during resentencing, or double jeopardy violation.
-
A defendant may not receive two separate convictions and sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using multiple firearms in relation to a single underlying drug trafficking offense. Only one conviction and sentence is permissible.
-
The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately choosing to speak with a cooperating co-defendant despite his attorney's advice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, and the trial judge's conduct was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the drug quantity calculations used for sentencing.
-
-
The court should remand the firearm enhancement aspect of the sentence because the district court failed to articulate specific factual grounds for finding that the defendant reasonably should have foreseen his coconspirator's possession of the weapon.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's actions did not constitute reversible error, and the defendant received a fair trial despite minor improprieties.
-
The court held that the mandatory life sentence without parole for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, based on prior felony drug convictions, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, due process, or statutory intent.
-
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, remanding for clarification on whether the defendant's driver's license was retained by the officers.
-
The court held that presentence reports of accomplice witnesses are not discoverable under the Jencks Act, and disclosure to a defendant requires a showing of compelling need, which was not met here.
-
A district court cannot depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on a belief that the career offender provisions are unconstitutional or create unwarranted disparities within a single case.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, including the drug amount from a dismissed count and denying a minimal role adjustment, and that the district court understood its authority to depart but properly declined to do so.
-
The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) by not making required findings or determinations on challenged facts in the presentence report. The court also affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of co-d
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing due to the district court's failure to comply with procedural rules regarding presentence reports.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by limiting closing arguments regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence and by criticizing defense counsel, denying one defendant a fair trial, but that such errors were harmless as to the other defendant due to strong
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on witness testimony, nor in its sentencing determination, and that conflicting witness testimony does not establish the government knowingly presented false evidence.
-
-
The court held that the seizure of cocaine and a gun was permissible under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that a government informant's presence during joint defense preparations did not violate the Sixth Amendment without demonstrable prejudice to the defendants. The court also held that alleged omissions in the search warrant affidavit regarding the opening of a car
-
The court held that the late production of a witness statement did not violate the Jencks Act absent bad faith or prejudice, and that notice requirements for sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 do not apply to sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
-
Inconsistent jury verdicts, including an acquittal on substantive counts and a conviction on a conspiracy count, do not automatically require reversal of the conspiracy conviction if sufficient evidence supports it.
-
The court held that an agent's insertion of his head into a vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, and consent to search luggage does not automatically purge the taint of a prior illegal search if intervening circumstances are lacking.
-
The court held that evidence obtained via a valid search warrant is admissible even if observed during an unlawful entry, provided the warrant is an independent source. The court also found that the defendant failed to establish a double jeopardy claim and remanded for resentenci
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the firearms charge because the government failed to prove the defendant knew to a practical certainty that his associate would be carrying a gun.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that while some of the defendant's testimony was improperly excluded as hearsay, the error was harmless.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the probation officer's undisclosed job offer from the FBI.
-
The court held that the defendant bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 545, as duress does not negate the knowledge element of the offense.
-
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was transporting cocaine.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions, viewed in totality, did not constitute reversible error, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a district court may be influenced by the Sentencing Guidelines when imposing a pre-Guidelines sentence, provided the sentence is within statutory limits and not a gross abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial because the prosecutor made unsubstantiated statements about a citizen's tip and cocaine purity during opening arguments, which prejudiced the defendant.
-
The government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed drugs with the intent to distribute them.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest Soto based on his suspicious driving and actions observing the drug transaction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on the defendant's criminal history and that the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also affirmed the application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the conviction for operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), finding that the extradition and prosecution did not violate the doctrines of dual criminality or specialty, and that the indictment was sufficient.
-
The court's majority opinion erred in limiting the district judge's discretion regarding conditions of release for defendants involved in controlled drug transactions.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the use of evidence obtained by a government agent after charges attached violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requiring exclusion and a new trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle was constitutional because the initial stop, detention, and search were based on reasonable suspicion and voluntary consent.
-
Possession with intent to distribute narcotics constitutes a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1), and evidence was sufficient to convict a police officer of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
-
An officer's warrantless search lacked probable cause where it rested solely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip identifying the suspect by name and describing a cocaine sale attempt moments earlier, combined with a five-month-old prior cocaine arrest. Under the totality of circum
-
The court held that the failure to file a supporting affidavit for a search warrant does not invalidate the warrant if other evidence establishes its existence and contents, and that a defendant must show prejudice to warrant reversal for failure to give a requested jury instruct
-
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury's findings or the trial court's rulings.
-
The court held that the defendant waived most of his claims by pleading guilty and that his remaining contentions were meritless.