Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine

1,645 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 299 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Amparo Forero-Rincon
  626 F.2d 218· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the DEA agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her bag, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Dohm
  618 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Korman
  614 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a warrantless entry to 'secure' premises pending a search warrant is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such entry must be suppressed.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  608 F.2d 1028· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that McGuire's severance and hearsay objections were properly denied, and Rivera's conviction for conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, but his convictions for distribution and possession were not.
• United States v. Velga Lisa Elksnis
  528 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's pre-search declaration of contraband did not preclude her conviction for illegal importation, and that her trial counsel was not incompetent.
• United States v. Seelig
  498 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a conspiracy conviction is valid even if a government informant is an essential participant, and that the 'knock and announce' rule's purpose requirement was excused as a useless gesture under the circumstances.
• Federick Solomon v. State
  596 So. 2d 789· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-04-07 ·cited 27×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial or the motion to sever the charges.
• Pineda v. State
  571 So. 2d 105· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-12-18 ·cited 27×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that limiting voir dire examination to twenty minutes per side, and denying a request for additional time to follow up on juror responses, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Delgado
  903 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the drug trafficking convictions but vacated the sentences in part, remanding for re-sentencing due to errors in imposing supervised release terms for offenses committed before November 1, 1987.
• United States v. Donnie Foster
  889 F.2d 1049· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that evidence of a prior, uncharged drug transaction was admissible as 'inextricably intertwined' with the charged offenses, and that the government's breach of a debriefing agreement required resentencing by a different judge.
• United States v. Barrios-Moriera
  872 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine because the officer's initial intrusion was lawful, the discovery was inadvertent, and he had probable cause to believe the package contained contraband.
• Williams v. State
  538 So. 2d 73· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-02-01 ·cited 27×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Baron
  860 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Baron's detention in a darkened bedroom constituted a de facto arrest supported by probable cause, and the subsequent black light test was a lawful search incident to that arrest. The court also found that any error in admitting testimony about marijuana-relat
• United States v. Arango
  853 F.2d 818· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that any Brady/Giglio implications from undisclosed evidence did not undermine confidence in the out
• United States v. Caraza
  843 F.2d 432· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a protective sweep of a residence following a lawful arrest is permissible if officers reasonably believe it is necessary for safety, and that coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible. The court also affirmed the d
• United States v. Carbone
  798 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the admission of authenticated and enhanced tape recordings and the use of transcripts as a jury aid were not an abuse of discretion, and that the denial of a post-trial hearing on alleged perjury was proper.
• United States v. Milian-Rodriguez
  759 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the searches of Milian's business premises and home were conducted pursuant to probable cause, exigent circumstances, or valid consent, and thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
• United States v. Riola
  694 F.2d 670· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendants' severance claims were properly denied as their defenses were not mutually exclusive and the prosecutor's comments did not impermissibly use post-arrest silence.
• United States v. Pirolli
  673 F.2d 1200· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the co-conspirator's statement and the cocaine found in the abandoned bag, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Barclift
  514 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mistrial or suppression, and the admission of a prior conviction was proper for limited purposes.
• United States v. Clark
  928 F.2d 639· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of previously prosecuted conduct does not bar a subsequent prosecution if it only tends to prove an element of the second offense, rather than establishing the entirety of an essential element. It also held that overt acts are not required elements fo
• United States v. Schmidt
  922 F.2d 1365· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not contain plain error.
• United States v. Aureliano Galindo Vasquez
  909 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
• United States v. Smith
  909 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the admission of wiretap evidence or co-conspirator statements, and upholding the sentencing decisions.
• United States v. Alberto Castro (89-1528)
  908 F.2d 85· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of money laundering transactions, denying motions to substitute counsel, or in sentencing enhancements, but must make a finding on the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Gibbs
  904 F.2d 52· D.C. Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendants guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Franklin
  896 F.2d 1063· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement to the defendant's sentence for possessing firearms during the commission of the drug offense.
• United States v. Wallace
  895 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) do not apply to sentence enhancements under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the defendant had actual notice of his prior convictions and potential sentence increase.
• United States v. Jimenez
  894 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause and that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room, making a warrant unnecessary. Furthermore, the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest and based on voluntary consent, and th
• United States v. Rose
  889 F.2d 1490· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the necessity for police interdiction of drug couriers does not outweigh constitutional standards for police intrusion into ordinary citizens' affairs.
• United States v. Dalton Green
  887 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting firearms and coconspirator statements, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Trigg
  878 F.2d 1037· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and within legal limitations, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment.
• Monroe v. State
  543 So. 2d 298· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-04-27 ·cited 26×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Dwight Monroe was arrested after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger, leading to discovery of cocaine and a handgun. The court reversed his conviction, holding that the traffic stop for a bald tire was pretextual and lacked reasonable justification absent the off
• United States v. Echeverri
  854 F.2d 638· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count and by admitting evidence of other crimes that was not sufficiently probative. However, the erroneous admission of evidence was d
• United States v. Torres
  845 F.2d 1165· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants and that the district court did not err in refusing to give a "missing witness" charge against the government.
• United States v. Romero
  836 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal prosecution was not barred by a prior Puerto Rico court's suppression order, and that consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances were permissible.
• United States v. Woolbright
  831 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. Dario Espinosa-Alvarez
  839 F.2d 1201· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the encounter between the defendant and DEA agents at the airport did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the detention of his luggage was supported by reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Gentile
  816 F.2d 1157· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the acquittal on the interstate travel charge did not collaterally estop the government from using testimony related to the possession charge, as not all facts presented were necessarily decided by the jury.
• United States v. Sanchez
  790 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that proceeding with a trial in absentia was not an abuse of discretion, a jury instruction on flight was harmless error, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Rengifo
  789 F.2d 975· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that tape recordings and their transcripts, even in a foreign language, are admissible if properly authenticated and that sending transcripts to the jury room is permissible within the trial court's discretion, especially when the jury does not understand the langu
• United States v. Candis White
  766 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded psychiatric evidence for a diminished capacity defense and properly denied the use of a chalkboard, and that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
• United States v. Quinones
  758 F.2d 40· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 26×
  The Omnibus Crime Control Act applies to Puerto Rico, and evidence admissible under federal law cannot be excluded because it would be inadmissible under Puerto Rico law.
• United States v. Bautista
  731 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the co-conspirator's statements were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Castellanos
  731 F.2d 979· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States v. Lawson
  682 F.2d 1012· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 26×
  A stipulated trial is not equivalent to a guilty plea requiring Rule 11 inquiries unless the defendant admits guilt and waives all issues. Constructive possession can be established by dominion and control, even in jointly occupied premises where contraband is in plain view.
• United States v. Setzer
  654 F.2d 354· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 26×·via Possession Of Cocaine Hydrochloride With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the initial encounter was a permissible police-citizen contact, and the subsequent seizure was justified by probable cause established by the defendant's own inculpatory statement.
• United States v. Anthon
  648 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 26×
  The third Miranda warning was inadequate, and statements made thereafter were involuntary, thus they should have been excluded.
• United States v. Vasquez
  634 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the investigatory stop, search of the shopping bag, and subsequent arrests were lawful, and that post-arrest statements were not tainted by prior Miranda violations.
• United States v. Palmere
  578 F.2d 105· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion for acquittal, refusing an absent-witness instruction, admitting evidence of the cocaine's street value, or in the instructions given.