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

• Sampson v. State
  863 So. 2d 404· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-12-31 ·cited 16×
  Michael Sampson appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to distribute after police found drugs in a fanny pack on a borrowed bicycle. The court reversed the conviction for cocaine possession with intent to sell, finding insufficient evidence of
• Oliveira v. State
  751 So. 2d 611· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-11-24 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that enhancing a sentence under both a specific offense enhancement statute and the habitual felony offender statute constitutes improper double enhancement.
• United States v. Easley
  977 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a 'missing witness' instruction and in applying a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury.
• United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu
  962 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Amparo
  961 F.2d 288· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-08 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentencing court's discretionary decisions regarding downward departures were not appealable.
• Collins v. State
  596 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-04-08 ·cited 16×
  Collins appealed her sentences for violating community control and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing the combined sentences exceeded the maximum permitted under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court agreed, finding that the 3.5 years incarceration followe
• United States v. Perez
  959 F.2d 164· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements without required findings on the record constitutes reversible error. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct
• United States v. Harry
  960 F.2d 51· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the defendant's offense level upward for his role as an organizer in the drug conspiracy.
• United States v. Koller
  956 F.2d 1408· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the money laundering conviction, Koller's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the government's conduct did not constitute outrageous conduct. Sentencing was affirmed.
• United States v. Cochran
  955 F.2d 1116· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences for conspiracy and related drug offenses, and dismissed one defendant's appeal regarding firearm possession.
• United States v. Levy
  955 F.2d 1098· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior attempted drug transaction under Rule 404(b), in denying the defendant's motion to suppress statements made during a non-custodial interrogation, and in imposing an enhanced sentence.
• United States v. Abreu
  952 F.2d 1458· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction on most counts, vacating the conspiracy conviction due to double jeopardy concerns, and found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence.
• United States v. Jairo Hernan PEÑA
  949 F.2d 751· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 16×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the district court did not err in admitting agent's notes or in giving a deliberate ignorance jury instruction.
• United States v. Cook
  949 F.2d 289· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's due process and equal protection rights were not violated by federal prosecution, the search warrant was valid, co-defendant testimony was admissible, jury instructions were adequate, and the sentence was properly calculated.
• United States v. Capote-Capote
  946 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
• United States v. Blake
  941 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment's joinder of offenses was proper, certain extrinsic evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez
  942 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
• United States v. de Francisco-Lopez
  939 F.2d 1405· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in its definition and application of the deliberate ignorance standard, asserting that the evidence supported the jury instruction.
• United States v. Rena A. Livingston
  936 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 16×
  A defendant waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence for sentencing enhancements by failing to object to the factual basis in the district court, and such failure does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if it was a reasonable tactical decision.
• United States v. Egbert Richardson
  939 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's sentence may be based on reasonably foreseeable conduct of co-conspirators, but not on negotiated drug amounts if the defendant was not reasonably capable of producing them. A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on a gove
• United States v. COX
  934 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
• United States v. Rivera-Lopez
  928 F.2d 372· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 16×
  A jury's acquittal on a specific count does not prevent a sentencing court from considering the acquitted conduct if it is established by reliable evidence and relevant to the offense of conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Gibson
  928 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, and that the giving of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was harmless error. The court al
• United States v. Meirovitz
  918 F.2d 1376· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's Miranda waiver, confession, and consent to search were voluntary, the admission of weapons was proper, the evidence was sufficient to prove predisposition, and the life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate.
• United States v. Harmon
  918 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 16×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a cooperating witness and evidence of prior drug transportation, as the jury was properly instructed to assess credibility and the probative value outweighed prejudice.
• United States v. Garcia
  905 F.2d 557· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was a valid border search, his statements were voluntary, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
• United States v. Radka
  904 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 16×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conclusion of exigent circumstances was supported by the record, warranting affirmance.
• United States v. Blackman
  897 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-05 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that while the search of the luggage was valid and the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the use of an alias was improper without a findi
• United States v. Johnson
  889 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the sentences imposed were improper because the district court failed to properly apply the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987 to offenses committed after its effective date.
• United States v. Anthony Temple
  890 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possession with intent to distribute, and that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in jury selection under Batson.
• The United States v. DiLORETO
  888 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court's prior decisions, particularly Swinehart, may have established a per se reversal rule for certain prosecutorial misconduct, but this conflicts with Supreme Court precedent requiring a prejudice analysis.
• United States v. Cohoon
  886 F.2d 1036· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by attributing a larger drug quantity to the defendant based on his admissions and evidence presented at sentencing.
• United States v. Duprey
  895 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while convictions are affirmed, sentences must be vacated and remanded for resentencing due to improper application of amended statutory provisions regarding supervised release.
• United States v. Harris
  876 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 16×
  The court's majority opinion incorrectly expands precedent to grant jail-time credit in situations not covered by existing law.
• United States v. Tartaglia
  864 F.2d 837· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the defendant's train roomette and knapsack because the train's imminent departure and the likelihood of evidence removal created a reasonable necessity for immediate action.
• United States v. King
  849 F.2d 485· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the district court's pretrial detention order was substantively correct, it was procedurally infirm for failing to provide written findings of fact and a statement of reasons. The case is remanded for the district court to articulate its findings and rea
• United States v. Sims
  845 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for recusal, dismissal of the indictment, or suppression of evidence, and that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
• United States v. Norton
  846 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 16×
• Smith v. State
  524 So. 2d 461· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-13 ·cited 16×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Medina-Ramos
  834 F.2d 874· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-04 ·cited 16×
  Venue was properly laid in New Mexico under the doctrine of constructive possession, as the defendants retained the ability to control the suitcase even as it entered the state.
• United States v. Corral
  823 F.2d 1389· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the roadblock, detention, and consents to search were constitutional and lawful, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of appending a written order to the pre-sentence repor
• United States v. Restrepo-Rua
  815 F.2d 1327· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Ira Lee Watkins
  811 F.2d 1408· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and correctly determined that a prosecutorial remark did not impermissibly prejudice a defendant's right not to testify.
• United States v. Gorecki
  813 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Gomez
  810 F.2d 947· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception was proper, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding alleged prior misconduct or in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Velasquez
  802 F.2d 104· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly excluded the time from the filing of pretrial motions to their disposition when calculating the 70-day period under the Speedy Trial Act, and that the evidence presented did not warrant an entrapment jury instruction.
• United States v. Baswell
  792 F.2d 755· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 16×
  A caretaker with implied authority from the owner can validly consent to a search of a vacation house, and initial statements made by a suspect before being considered in custody are admissible without Miranda warnings.
• United States v. FOX
  788 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a five-and-a-half-month adjournment between jury selection and the commencement of trial, without stated justification, violated the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Grandison
  783 F.2d 1152· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike a juror, imposing consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances, admitting evidence of unexplained wealth, admitting a deceased witness's prior testimony, or denying a motion to
• Barnes v. United States
  777 F.2d 430· 8th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to distribute and that any error in jury instructions was harmless or not plain error.