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. del Vizo
  918 F.2d 821· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Anthony Ruiz Del Vizo's arrest was supported by probable cause, and therefore the denial of his motion to suppress evidence was correct.
• United States v. Kimmons
  917 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a five-month delay in receiving a trial transcript did not violate due process without a showing of prejudice, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, as it only established a buyer-seller relationship.
• C.L.L. v. State
  566 So. 2d 878· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-09-11 ·cited 18×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding intent to sell, but sufficient for simple possession.
• United States v. Labat
  905 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine, but sufficient for conspiracy and use of a communication facility to commit a narcotics felony.
• United States v. Neil
  903 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court erred in departing downward from the sentencing guidelines based on factors adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Eugenio Alvarado
  898 F.2d 987· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the consent to search was voluntary, and the sentencing guideline applications were not erroneous.
• United States v. Whyte
  892 F.2d 1170· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that discretionary refusals to depart from sentencing guidelines are not appealable, and affirmed the conviction and sentence on other grounds.
• United States v. Houston
  892 F.2d 696· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the convictions and sentences were valid, and that the government's cross-appeal regarding sentencing under the Guidelines was procedurally barred due to a failure to object.
• United States v. Wesson
  889 F.2d 134· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 18×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  A person can be convicted of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute drugs even if they never possessed the drugs themselves.
• United States v. Halliburton
  870 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 18×
  A jury's brief, inadvertent observation of a defendant in handcuffs outside the courtroom does not automatically require reversal if the trial court takes appropriate curative measures and the defendant fails to affirmatively show actual prejudice.
• United States v. Rivera
  867 F.2d 1261· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the highway search was not a valid search incident to arrest, it was lawful because the defendant voluntarily consented to it.
• United States v. Posner
  865 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 18×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that evidence of subsequent marijuana transactions was admissible to show predisposition for cocaine charges, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. However, the imposition of a supervised release term was improper.
• United States v. Carmona
  858 F.2d 66· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting evidence from a garbage search, admitting expert testimony, or denying a motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Bennett
  836 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 18×
  Acquittal on importation charges does not necessarily mean the jury decided issues of fact essential to possession with intent to distribute charges, thus collateral estoppel does not bar retrial on those counts.
• United States v. Dario Arteaga
  807 F.2d 424· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of the entrapment defense and no due process violation.
• United States v. DeJESUS
  806 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that co-conspirator hearsay statements were admissible against a defendant if independent evidence showed membership in the conspiracy, and that cumulative sentences could be imposed for simultaneous possession of different controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 8
• United States v. Constanza Perdomo
  800 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was justified by exigent circumstances and that the search warrant was not overbroad. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing.
• United States v. Lehmann
  798 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the observed bulge, suspicious behavior, and drug courier profile, making the subsequent search incident to a valid arrest constitutional.
• United States v. Torres
  793 F.2d 436· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the use of standby counsel, and that the limitation on the interpreter, while an error, was harmless.
• United States v. Brown
  770 F.2d 241· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 18×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the prior indictment without prejudice, allowing for reprosecution under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Isaura Figueroa Cepeda
  768 F.2d 1515· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into an agreement to commit a conspiracy, reversing her conviction.
• United States v. Barrientos
  758 F.2d 1152· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a proper cautionary instruction regarding a co-defendant's midtrial acquittal, this error was not reversible. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Abdula Ilazi
  730 F.2d 1120· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion for the initial investigatory stop and that the subsequent stop, though second, did not exceed the bounds of an investigatory stop and was not an arrest without probable cause. The attempted search was valid as incident to a
• United States v. German Mejia
  720 F.2d 1378· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-25 ·cited 18×·via Possession Of Cocaine Hydrochloride With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the defendant's consent to an X-ray search was voluntary and not coerced, and that he failed to establish the elements of a duress defense.
• United States v. Harris
  713 F.2d 623· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless re-entry of the residence, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, possession, and distribution of cocaine.
• United States v. Compton
  704 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant abandoned the bag of cocaine, thus lacking standing to challenge its seizure, and that his consent to search his car was voluntary. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Silvio DeWOLF
  696 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that post-arrest statements elicited surreptitiously, without notice to counsel, are admissible if they concern a separate crime and are admitted to show consciousness of guilt, not the original offense.
• State v. Wargin
  418 So. 2d 1261· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-08 ·cited 18×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Consent to search luggage extends to closed containers within that luggage, and no additional consent is required to open such containers.
• United States v. Biondich
  652 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Velez
  652 F.2d 258· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to recharge the jury on willful membership in the conspiracy, when responding to a jury's request for clarification, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Camillo Vargas
  643 F.2d 296· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendants' vehicle was a legitimate investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent seizure of cocaine in plain view was valid.
• Manner v. State
  387 So. 2d 1014· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-09-10 ·cited 18×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's flight and discarding of cocaine, was sufficient to support a jury's finding of guilt for conspiracy to sell cocaine.
• United States v. Giorgio Penco
  612 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of cocaine from a co-defendant's apartment on the conspiracy count, but had automatic standing on the possession count. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to the Fourth Amendment
• United States v. Nelson
  582 F.2d 1246· 10th Cir.· 1978-08-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a second trial after a mistrial declared upon defense motion, even if necessitated by prosecutorial error, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The jury instruction regarding quantity and purity of drugs was supported by evidence and not plain error. I
• United States v. Segovia
  576 F.2d 251· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that admitting evidence of marijuana transactions to prove predisposition for cocaine distribution was proper under Rule 404(b), and the dismissal of a single juror with anti-jury sentiments did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Olivares-Vega
  495 F.2d 827· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Miranda warnings given were sufficient and the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was proper. The proof of the substance being cocaine was also adequate.
• United States v. Roell
  487 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the pretrial non-disclosure of an informant's identity, nor by restrictions on cross-examination and argument, and that their convictions were otherwise valid.
• United States v. Nickens
  955 F.2d 112· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on juror English proficiency claims raised post-verdict, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, while improper, did not constitute plain error given the context of defense coun
• United States v. Asim Springer
  946 F.2d 1012· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and not a seizure, and that Springer abandoned the suitcase, thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
• United States v. Welch
  945 F.2d 1378· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's proffered expert testimony regarding tape alteration and in admitting the government's authenticated tape recording, and that sentencing enhancements were pro
• United States v. Lucas
  932 F.2d 1210· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 17×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Crack Cocaine
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, except for specific sentencing enhancements on certain counts, which were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Gomez
  905 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 17×
  A defendant can be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence for a specific drug offense, such as cocaine, even if they did not know the exact type of drug involved, as long as they knew they were transporting a controlled substance.
• United States v. Anderson
  859 F.2d 1171· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found during the vehicle search, nor in refusing to suppress roadside statements, and that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to
• United States v. Rodriguez-Suarez
  856 F.2d 135· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act are constitutional and apply to all defendants, and that individual claims regarding jury selection, prosecutorial comments, and jury instructions
• United States v. Peddle
  821 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 17×
  The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Coates beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bradshaw v. State
  509 So. 2d 1306· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-07-15 ·cited 17×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, supporting the convictions.
• United States v. Ramirez
  810 F.2d 1338· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the search of an abandoned hotel room and its contents did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Gotchis
  803 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an agent's rough notes of an informant's tip are not 'statements' under Rule 26.2, routine biographical questions are permissible post-Miranda silence, and a prosecutor's comments on the lack of evidence for a defense theory do not impermissibly shift the burd
• United States v. Rodriguez
  588 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant failed to establish a cognizable class for his jury selection challenge and that his statutory claim regarding jury wheel refilling was procedurally deficient. The court also found the jury instruction on specific inte
• United States v. Poms
  484 F.2d 919· 4th Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the cocaine found in the defendant's bag was admissible evidence because its discovery was the result of a valid protective search for weapons under Terry v. Ohio, and the denial of the motion to disclose the informant's identity was proper as the informant wa