Possession With Intent To Distribute

2,534 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,907 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Wilfredo Diaz-Villafane
  874 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 349×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in suspending a local rule and that its substantial upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was reasonable.
• State v. Batraville Vincent Delva
  575 So. 2d 643· Fla.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 319×
  Failure to instruct a jury that the defendant knew the substance was cocaine is not fundamental error when the defendant's knowledge of the nature of the substance was not an issue in the case, even absent trial objection. Such error may only be preserved through contemporaneous
• Norman v. State
  379 So. 2d 643· Fla.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 270×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Ray Norman was convicted of cannabis possession after sheriff's warrantless search of a tobacco barn on leased farm property. The Florida Supreme Court held the initial search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the defendant's subsequent consent was tainted by the illegal int
• United States v. Oates
  560 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 256×
  The court held that the chemist's report and worksheet were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Carmine Tramunti
  513 F.2d 1087· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 252×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest DiNapoli and Papa and to search the suitcase, and therefore the contents were admissible.
• United States v. Sperling
  506 F.2d 1323· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-10 ·cited 231×·via Possession Of Narcotics With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a key witness's letter, required under the Jencks Act, was prejudicial for some defendants, requiring a new trial on conspiracy charges, but not for others due to overwhelming independent evidence.
• United States v. Petrozziello
  548 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 230×
  The court held that the admission of the gun was proper as it was in plain view during a lawful seizure of the vehicle, and that the defendant's statement was admissible as he failed to raise objections below.
• United States v. Diecidue
  603 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 226×
  A RICO conspiracy indictment adequately alleges an essential element when it charges defendants with willfully and knowingly conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) and describes the nature of the racketeering activities composing the alleged pattern. The definition of 'enter
• United States v. Vera
  701 F.2d 1349· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 225×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting voir dire, denying a challenge for cause, or in denying motions for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. The prosecutor's comments during closing argument were also deemed not prej
• United States v. White
  888 F.2d 490· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 207×
  The court held that Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3(a)(2) requires inclusion of drug quantities that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, even if the defendant was not convicted of possessing those quantities.
• United States v. Matra
  841 F.2d 837· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 207×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of an unregistered machine gun, and using a machine gun during a drug trafficking offense, and that possession with intent to distribute qualifi
• United States v. Valle-Valdez
  554 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-08 ·cited 204×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
• United States v. Buenrostro
  868 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 202×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that a defendant's status as a courier does not automatically qualify them for a 'minimal participant' reduction under the sentencing guidelines, and a district court's refusal to depart from the guidelines is not appealable if it results in a lawful sentence.
• United States v. Rigoberto Moya-Gomez
  860 F.2d 706· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 198×
  The court held that the pretrial restraint of assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853, which includes funds for attorneys' fees, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, as the statute does not exempt attorneys' fees and the threat of forfeiture impacts the ability t
• United States v. Jackson
  549 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 197×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, conducting voir dire, or managing witness testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Bascaro
  742 F.2d 1335· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 192×
  The court held that marijuana offenses can be the subject of a RICO charge and that wiretap applications, even if amended, are valid if probable cause exists independently of challenged information.
• United States v. Berkowitz
  662 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 189×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, limiting cross-examination, or in its handling of other issues raised by the defendants.
• United States v. Blasco
  702 F.2d 1315· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 188×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the warrantless entry and search of the Cohen property were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations did not prejudice the appellants to the extent requiring a mistrial.
• United States v. Dudley Lee Berry
  670 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 188×·via Possession Of Cocaine Hydrochloride With Intent To Distribute
  Appellants voluntarily consented to accompany agents to the DEA office, making their subsequent detention lawful.
• United States v. Terence George Kelly
  888 F.2d 732· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 182×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and for aiding and abetting such possession, and that the exclusion of testimony regarding the defendant's professional obligations was an abuse of
• Gordon v. State
  528 So. 2d 910· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-27 ·cited 182×·via Possession With Intent To Sell
  Bruce Gordon was convicted of both sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell the same single rock of cocaine based on a single transaction. The court reversed, holding that these crimes constitute a single offense under double jeopardy principles and cannot support multi
• United States v. Augustin Alvarez
  755 F.2d 830· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 179×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  BATF agents are protected under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and knowledge of the victim's federal status is not an element of the assault crime under 18 U.S.C. § 111.
• United States v. Carson
  702 F.2d 351· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 178×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's convictions of all three appellants for conspiracy to distribute heroin, finding that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and each appellant's participation in it.
• United States v. Onori
  535 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 175×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the trial court's actions regarding judicial comments, admission of 'other crimes' evidence, limitations on cross-examination, and use of transcripts did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Vergara
  687 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 172×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Carlson
  547 F.2d 1346· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 172×
  The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony under Fed.R.Ev. 804(b)(5) was proper because the declarant was unavailable due to the defendant's actions, and the defendant waived his confrontation rights by causing the unavailability. The court also found the testimony
• United States v. Russell
  703 F.2d 1243· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Fleishman
  684 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 164×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting agent opinion testimony regarding lookout activity, handwriting expert testimony, or coconspirator hearsay statements, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Marable
  578 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-14 ·cited 160×
  The court held that prosecuting the defendant for a cocaine conspiracy after a prior conviction for a heroin conspiracy arising from the same agreement violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Whitten
  706 F.2d 1000· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 159×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Methamphetamine
  The court held that the evidence seized was admissible, affirming the convictions, as the searches, while having some irregularities, were substantially lawful and the evidence obtained fell within the scope of the warrants or exceptions thereto. The court also found the evidence
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Davis
  666 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 155×
  Venue was proper for conspiracy and Travel Act counts, but not for the possession count, as the drugs were never in the trial district. Mrs. Davis's conspiracy conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. LaGUARDIA
  774 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 154×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and use of a firearm to commit a felony.
• United States v. Thomas
  870 F.2d 174· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 152×
  The court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional, drug quantity was properly calculated, acceptance of responsibility was correctly denied, and the defendant was not a minor participant.
• United States v. Whaley
  830 F.2d 1469· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 150×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of a single conspiracy and no prosecutorial vindictiveness in the superseding indictment after a mistrial.
• United States v. Stricklin
  591 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 150×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final order, and the burden of persuasion shifts to the government once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of former jeopardy.
• United States v. Aristedes Drougas
  748 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-07 ·cited 149×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy charges and that joint trials were permissible and not prejudicial.
• United States v. Epifanio Sanchez-Lopez
  879 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 146×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for election of counts because the conspiracy charges for cocaine and heroin were multiplicious. The court also found that the joinder of alienage counts with drug counts was proper and that the judge's comments d
• United States v. Postal
  589 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 146×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  A violation of a treaty does not divest a court of jurisdiction over defendants arrested aboard a foreign vessel seized beyond the twelve-mile limit.
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Bulman
  667 F.2d 1374· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 137×
• United States v. Miller
  589 F.2d 1117· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 137×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the search of the boat and seizure of the navigational chart were constitutional under the community caretaking and exigent circumstances doctrines, and that the appellant's detention and subsequent arrest were justified by probable cause.
• United States v. Cravero
  545 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 136×
  Entry into a third party's home to execute an arrest warrant is permissible without a search warrant if officers reasonably believe the suspect is present.
• United States v. Gomez-Rojas
  507 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 136×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the trial court erred in excusing a potential entrapment witness without a proper Fifth Amendment inquiry and in giving an erroneous jury instruction on entrapment, requiring a new trial for Sutherlin. The court affirmed Gomez-Rojas' conviction, finding suffic
• United States v. Cruz-Valdez
  773 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-18 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the "mere presence" of a defendant aboard a vessel containing a large quantity of marijuana, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to support a conviction for drug offenses.
• United States v. Tobias
  662 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 135×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Pcp
  The dissenting judge argues that the DEA's extreme overinvolvement in the commission of the crime, from inception to completion, should preclude prosecution under the due process clause or the court's supervisory powers. The judge also contends the majority improperly disqualifie
• United States v. Houshang Sheikh
  654 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction when the defendant's alleged coconspirators were acquitted, but affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Marx
  635 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methaqualone, and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States v. Williams
  622 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 134×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  A DEA agent has statutory authority to make a warrantless arrest for criminal contempt committed in his presence, and evidence obtained from such an arrest and subsequent search is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if the officer acted in a reasonable good-fa
• United States v. Kirk
  534 F.2d 1262· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in admitting recorded conversations or denying severance motions.