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 the district court's finding that the defendant acted as a manager for sentencing enhancement purposes and that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions.
-
The court held that the encounter was consensual, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence enhancement was proper.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing on the issue of obstruction of justice.
-
A conviction that is expungeable under state law but not formally expunged can serve as a predicate offense for federal firearm possession charges, and can be considered for Sentencing Guidelines calculations, unless state law expressly prohibits firearm possession following rest
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the appearance of the duct-taped package and the defendant's behavior.
-
The court held that a defendant has an unqualified right to inspect jury lists to prepare a challenge to jury selection procedures, but that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment on a collateral matter does not require striking their testimony.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the investigative stop, the subsequent search and arrest were lawful, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that prior state convictions for cocaine possession, even if involving conduct related to a federal continuing criminal enterprise, can be included in the criminal history score if the conduct is severable and not explicitly charged as part of the instant federal o
-
The court held that a district court's downward departure based on a defendant's low likelihood of recidivism was an impermissible basis for departure, as it was a characteristic of the defendant rather than their conduct.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the admission of DEA agent testimony did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court affirmed the conviction for failure to appear but vacated the drug convictions due to improper trial in absentia.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the ex parte contact between a law clerk and a juror did not violate due process rights, especially since no objection was raised below.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements and the drugs found on her person were admissible because they were voluntary revelations, not the product of custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that while the district court misstated the definition of 'carrying' a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly established the firearm's availability.
-
The court held that police had reasonable suspicion to detain the luggage for a dog sniff, even if consent was not voluntary, because the detention was justified by articulable, objective facts.
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper because the traffic stop was valid, the subsequent detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, consent to search was voluntary, and statements were made after a valid waiver of Miranda rights. The sentence w
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or coercion, and that the sentencing enhancements were proper.
-
The court held that the officer's intrusion into the vehicle's airspace was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the totality of the circumstances, and that a disassembled but readily reassemblable shotgun warranted a sentencing enhancement.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the bathroom for a shotgun was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the need to recover a dangerous weapon believed to be nearby and accessible to others.
-
The court held that the dog sniff was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and that probable cause existed to search the vehicle, independently supported by the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court also affirmed the trial court's Batson ruling and other issues raised.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing identification, removing a juror, or calculating sentences, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
-
A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects preceding the plea, and federal drug and firearm statutes are valid exercises of Congress' commerce power, thus not violating the Tenth Amendment.
-
The dissenting judge believes the other act evidence was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and not unfairly prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the sentencing calculations were correct.
-
The court held that the weight of cocaine is a sentencing factor for the judge, not a jury element, and the district court erred by deferring to the jury's implicit finding on weight.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for both counts and that the district court did not err in attributing 15 kilograms of cocaine to the defendant for sentencing purposes.
-
The court held that expert testimony mirroring a government witness's account of drug operations and injecting the defendant's ethnicity was improperly admitted and prejudicial.
-
The court held that the officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the defendant's admission of suitcase ownership was consensual.
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution of a conspiracy charge if it is the same offense as a previously acquitted conspiracy, but does not bar prosecution of substantive offenses, even if related to the acquitted conspiracy, unless the substantive offense relies on the barre
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing enhancements for firearm possession and obstruction of justice, and the denial of acceptance of responsibility, but vacated the imposition of costs for supervised release.
-
The court held that a sixteen-month delay in preparing trial transcripts did not violate due process absent a showing of prejudice, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a diagram offered for impeachment.
-
The court held that the Montana prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause or collateral estoppel, as it charged different conduct and did not divide a single conspiracy into multiple prosecutions.
-
The court held that the investigative stop and pat-down were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motions to suppress evidence and reveal an informant's identity, nor in admitting the seized substances or submitting the case to the jury.
-
-
The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the quantity of cash, compacted cocaine, and coded notes, was sufficient to support a jury's finding of intent to distribute. The court also held that the admission of prior convictions and the federal prosecution itself did
-
The court held that the trial court's finding of an absence of good faith in deporting material witnesses, despite ambiguity, was sufficient to meet the standard for dismissal.
-
The court held that a jury instruction stating it is the jury's duty to find a defendant guilty if the government proves all elements beyond a reasonable doubt is proper.
-
The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's unavailability waives confrontation and hearsay objections, and that the jury instructions regarding the lawful conduct defense were adequate.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not proper on direct appeal and must be raised in collateral proceedings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance or in its conduct during the trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest was justified by exigent circumstances, the informants' statements were not hearsay, and the prosecution did not violate discovery rules, thus affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove the substance was heroin, despite a gap in the chain of custody, because the chemist's testimony was relevant and other evidence supported the jury's finding.
-
The court held that probation under Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.7411 constitutes a "conviction" for purposes of federal firearm possession by a felon statutes, and that the denial of motions for a new trial and to vacate sentence was proper.
-
The court held that excusing college students from the venire does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement because college students are not a 'distinctive' group.
-
A guilty plea waives the right to challenge the legality of a search, thereby precluding a subsequent claim that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if evidence was seized to enhance a sentence.
-
A defense lawyer must lay an evidentiary foundation before arguing that the absence of fingerprint evidence implies that such evidence could have been obtained and would have been exculpatory.
-
The court held that items previously discovered by lawful means are admissible even if later seized during an illegal search, and that a harsher sentence after retrial is permissible if not motivated by vindictiveness.
-
The court held that requiring a defendant to stand trial in prison garb was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt on this record.
-
The court held that allowing unredacted transcripts into evidence and the jury room, and denying discovery of unrelated audio tapes, did not constitute an abuse of discretion.