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 evidence was sufficient to support Martin's convictions and that Vaughn's claims of severance, unlawful search, and improper admission of a photograph did not warrant reversal.
-
The court affirmed Ramirez's conviction, reversed Sanchez's money laundering conviction, and remanded for resentencing.
-
The court held that the district court erred in enhancing the defendant's sentence for weapon possession because the weapon was not possessed during the offense of conviction, but affirmed the other sentencing decisions.
-
Doctors acting to save a drug courier's life are not government agents conducting a Fourth Amendment search, even if their actions produce evidence.
-
The court affirmed Billy Hoyt's conviction but remanded Jimmie Elvis's sentence for further factual findings regarding the quantity of cocaine attributable to him.
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to follow the prior mandate of this court, which had determined that the defendant could not be held accountable for the full quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the appellants' residence lacked probable cause, and thus the evidence seized should have been suppressed. The search warrant was also found to be unsupported by probable cause.
-
The court held that the defendant's post-arrest statement, elicited by police conduct that was the functional equivalent of interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel, was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and that the sentencing enhancements were properly applied.
-
The court held that the passenger's furtive movements provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk, and that the driver waived his challenge to the warrantless car search by failing to properly raise it before the trial court.
-
The court held that a defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing when his appointed attorney remained present but offered no advocacy, and the defendant repeatedly indicated he was unrepresented.
-
The court held that the district court's refusal to give an addict-informant instruction, when the informant's testimony was uncorroborated on crucial points, constituted plain error depriving the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the district court erred by failing to make required findings on controverted facts in the presentence report before sentencing.
-
The court held that the arrest of the defendant was lawful because officers had reasonable suspicion of drug-related activity and probable cause to arrest after cocaine was discovered in plain view, thus the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a container within a car is permissible under the automobile exception, and that a prosecutor's improper vouching for a witness did not prejudice the defendant due to curative instructions.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the defendant waived his right to counsel of choice by failing to raise the issue in the district court and that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop, the subsequent seizure of evidence was lawful, the jury selection was proper, the admission of parole officer testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and the sentencing determinations under the
-
The court held that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, including enhancements for special skill and criminal history, and that the sentence did not violate the ex post facto clause.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, that the defendant lacked standing to suppress evidence seized from a co-arrestee, and that the jury instructions adequately covered the defense's theory.
-
A premature notice of appeal filed before sentencing in a criminal case is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date the sentence is entered as a judgment. The court also held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.
-
A prior New Jersey conviction classified as a 'high misdemeanor' is considered a 'felony' for the purpose of federal sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) if it is punishable by more than one year imprisonment.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of its contents.
-
The court held that the encounter between the officers and the defendant was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the arrests, searches, and seizures were constitutional and that the admission of certain hearsay testimony was harmless error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for possession with intent to distribute, and that the sentence was correctly based on the original amount of cocaine intercepted.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining that relevant information was not intentionally withheld for search warrants and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the indictment was multiplicitous as to the possession counts because the defendant's contemporaneous possession of cocaine in his pocket and in the hotel room constituted a single offense. The court also held the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the delay caused by the continuance from the seventy-day Speedy Trial Act period.
-
The court held that the admission of criminal profile evidence was not plain error and hearsay testimony was harmless error, thus affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the term "any criminal sentence" in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) includes unsupervised probation, and therefore the district court properly added two points to the defendant's criminal history score.
-
The court held that a district court may include drug quantities from co-conspirator transactions in sentencing if the defendant specifically objects to conspiracy membership and the court resolves that factual dispute.
-
The court held that a missing witness instruction and argument are improper when the absent witness could only support the defendant's version of events by incriminating themselves.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the delays in the proceedings were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act and did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and the jury instructions regarding the defendant's failure to appear were not erroneous.
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial impropriety were without merit, and affirmed his convictions.
-
The court held that an unlawful search does not automatically revoke prior consent to search, and a factual inquiry is needed to determine if consent was revoked.
-
The court held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the DEA's oral policy for inventory searches of rental cars was sufficiently standardized, the DEA had lawful custody of the vehicle after arrest, and the policy required searching clo
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the business card into evidence, as the defendant was not prejudiced by the government's untimely disclosure.
-
The court held that the district court erred by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard to determine the voluntariness of consent to search, requiring remand. The court also held that the defendant was not in custo
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, finding reasonable suspicion for the stop, voluntary consent for the extended detention, and probable cause for the arrest.
-
The court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute and distributing that same substance when the offenses arise from the same act and are part of a single transaction.
-
A warrantless investigatory stop based on erroneous factual information due to police negligence violates the Fourth Amendment, and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply.
-
The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) do not violate due process or the Eighth Amendment as applied to a drug addict, and that an orally pronounced sentence controls over a conflicting written judgment.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or in denying an absent witness instruction, and affirmed the convictions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and that the district court did not err in denying motions to suppress, sever, grant a continuance, or in its sentencing and jury charge decisions.
-
The court held that the phrase "may not be less than" in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) mandates a minimum sentence, and that possession with intent to distribute is a crime 'involving' distribution under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for distribution of cocaine and the Travel Act violation, as lay testimony and circumstantial evidence can establish the identity of a substance, and possession after interstate travel can constitute an
-
The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in excluding a sentencing transcript and inconsistent versions of an investigation report.
-
The court held that even if an arrest is pretextual, a subsequent voluntary consent to search can validate the search under the Fourth Amendment.