56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the jury instructions on venue were erroneous, they did not constitute plain error because the evidence was sufficient to establish venue in Maine under either the defendant's or the informant's version of events. The court al
-
The court held that prosecutorial statements about perjury, the trial court's reading of testimony, and a transcription error did not constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the government's explanation for the delay in sealing wiretap recordings was objectively reasonable, and the jury instructions and evidence were sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the term 'cocaine base' in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) is not limited to 'crack' and encompasses other smokable, non-water-soluble forms of cocaine base. The substance in question, being smokable and chemically similar to crack, fa
-
The court held that the district court did not err in quashing the subpoena for police records or in denying the motion to suppress evidence, as the traffic stop was objectively permissible and consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the defendant's detention at the border, even under restrictive conditions, was supported by reasonable suspicion and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that his subsequent statements were either voluntary or harmless error.
-
The court held that a defendant who breaches a plea agreement and is subsequently convicted after trial is not entitled to the protections against vindictive sentencing afforded by North Carolina v. Pearce, as no presumption of vindictiveness arises in such circumstances.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, and his subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the search of the garage was within the scope of the warrant under Texas law, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the account book for sentencing.
-
Non-retroactive statutory amendments to sentencing law cannot constitute, as a matter of law, an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), to the exte
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a search warrant for a single address was sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, even though the address contained multiple unmarked apartments, because the officers conducted a reasonable investigation and did not know or have reason t
-
Robert Kennedy was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, following a search of his apartment that revealed drugs, scales, ammunition, and a handgun.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not commit plain error by relying on its own experience and common sense regarding the deadliness of illegal drugs during sentencing.
-
The court held that any error in admitting hearsay statements was harmless because the declarant later testified and was subject to cross-examination, and that chain of custody challenges generally go to the weight, not admissibility, of evidence.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are meritless and procedurally barred, and his motion to amend is untimely.
-
The court held that the movant's challenge to his § 924(c) and (o) convictions based on United States v. Davis is not jurisdictional and is subject to procedural default, and that the movant cannot establish cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse the default.
-
The court held that the prisoner's motion to vacate his convictions and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be denied because his claims lack merit, are procedurally barred, or are procedurally defaulted.
-
The court held that while there were plain errors in the indictment and guilty plea acceptance regarding the knowledge-of-status element, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these errors affected his substantial rights or had a serious effect on judicial proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, as the drug and firearm sales were sufficiently connected.
-
The court held that the movant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged instructional error, and that his section 924(o) conviction was not solely based on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause of section 924(c).
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and without merit, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his sentence.
-
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the Maritime Drug Enforcement Act (MDLEA) constitutional as applied and statutory jurisdiction established.
-
The court held that the collective knowledge doctrine allowed imputation of probable cause to the officer who stopped the defendant's vehicle, validating the search.
-
The court held that the indictment was sufficient, venue was proper, the vessel was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the relevant statutes were constitutional, and the determination of jurisdiction was a question of law for the court, not the jury.
-
A defendant convicted of a narcotics offense may satisfy the "safety valve" criteria, including truthfully disclosing information about the offense, even if they maintain their innocence and the jury found they had knowledge of the narcotics.
-
The court held that even if evidence was obtained unconstitutionally, it should not be suppressed because the arresting officer acted lawfully under the law of the jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, and suppression would not deter future misconduct.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for knowing and intentional participation in a drug smuggling operation, as mere presence on the vessel was not enough.
-
The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and severance under Rule 14 was not warranted, as potential prejudice could be cured by jury instructions and redactions.
-
The court held that a handgun seized from a vehicle within the curtilage of a residence, and cash seized from another vehicle, should be suppressed because their incriminating nature was not immediately apparent and they were not listed in the search warrant. However, evidence se
-
The court held that polygraph examination results are admissible to corroborate or impeach a witness's testimony, provided certain conditions under the Federal Rules of Evidence are met, and that a single polygraph result can be sufficient under FRE 608(a).
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a Border Patrol agent's observations of a vehicle and its driver, including nervousness and appearance, did not constitute probable cause for a stop, even if they provided reasonable suspicion.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions but vacated his sentences and remanded for resentencing because the upward adjustment for a leadership role was not supported by sufficient reliable evidence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction and that the district court did not err in refusing a buyer-seller jury instruction that was inconsistent with the defense's trial strategy.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in including the nine kilograms under negotiation and the forty kilograms from prior transactions in the sentencing calculation, nor in denying the acceptance of responsibility reduction.
-
The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the suitcase containing cocaine, and his subsequent seizure was reasonable, thus the cocaine was admissible.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no reversible error in admitting co-conspirator statements, and no misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that a defendant who goes to trial to assert issues not related to factual guilt may be entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction, but otherwise, denying factual guilt at trial forecloses such a reduction. The court also held that the erroneous admissio
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership of luggage forfeits any expectation of privacy, allowing police to search the luggage without a warrant, even if the defendant later allegedly consented or a dog alerted to the luggage.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appealing defendants, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the proceedings. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims were dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court concurs with the majority opinion but emphasizes the need for district judges to carefully scrutinize peremptory strikes to prevent racial discrimination.
-
The court held that the search of an apparently mobile vehicle, even if inoperable, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment's vehicle exception if officers have probable cause and reasonably believe it is mobile. The court also held that a defendant is not entitled to a minor p
-
The court held that the exclusion of the informant's and investigator's testimony was proper, and the defendant's due process rights were not violated. However, the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was vacated due to insufficient factual findings by the district co
-
996 F.2d 605·
2d Cir.·
1993-06-23
The court held that the sentence must be vacated and remanded because the defendant may have been improperly sentenced to a term of supervised release for a conspiracy conviction predating a statutory amendment.
-
The court's judgment is concurred with, but the reasoning differs from the panel's.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, packaging, and financial transactions, was sufficient for a jury to find the substance was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the Confrontation Clause
-
The court held that Rodriguez's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the FBI took his statement without his appointed counsel present, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Napoles and Guerra. The court also held that the voir dire did not violate Napoles'
-
The court held that the district court erred in admitting a prior food stamp conviction for impeachment purposes, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in failing to explicitly ascertain the defendant's consent to a stipulation, and
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a suppression hearing or a continuance, and that sufficient evidence supported the firearm conviction.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or its decision regarding juror qualification, and that the admission of certain documents, while potentially erroneous, did not constitute plain