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. Martinez
  764 F.2d 744· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the affidavit submitted to the magistrate, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, provided sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
• United States v. McMURRAY
  747 F.2d 1417· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's artificial leg was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that sufficient evidence existed to prove the intent required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1791.
• United States v. Padilla
  729 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Koessel
  706 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the evidence seized was admissible, and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Swayne
  700 F.2d 467· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge holds that the DEA agents lacked probable cause to arrest Swayne, making the seizure of evidence and his inculpatory statement inadmissible.
• United States v. Colmenares-Hernandez
  659 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the jury instructions were adequate, and the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Alvarez
  626 F.2d 208· 1st Cir.· 1980-07-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and possession of cocaine, but that the special parole term was improperly imposed.
• United States v. Deggendorf
  626 F.2d 47· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 16×
  The court should have suppressed evidence obtained from Deggendorf's involuntary detention.
• United States v. Haro-Espinosa
  619 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, refusing a new trial based on alleged Brady violations, finding the evidence sufficient for conspiracy convictions, admitting expert testimony, refusing a specific jury instruction,
• United States v. Constantine
  567 F.2d 266· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the officer's stop of the defendant was justified by reasonable suspicion, making the seizure of evidence permissible.
• United States v. Frattini
  501 F.2d 1234· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The admission of a chemist's report containing an agent's hearsay notation linking a defendant to drug distribution was reversible error, but the denial of a continuance for a witness was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Collier
  493 F.2d 327· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 848 was not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Mateen Yusuf Shabazz
  993 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-04 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the car was lawful based on consent, the refusal of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was not error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Custis
  988 F.2d 1355· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that newly discovered impeachment evidence, without more, does not warrant a new trial, and that challenges to the constitutional validity of prior convictions, other than Gideon violations, are generally not reviewable at a federal sentencing hearing.
• United States v. Boissoneault
  926 F.2d 230· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that even if expert testimony was admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Solis
  923 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines range, and affirmed the conviction in all other respects.
• United States v. Eustaquio C. Deases
  918 F.2d 118· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting testimony, or refusing a downward sentencing departure, and that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Pando
  841 F.2d 1014· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a statement offered to show the defendant's state of mind, as it was not hearsay when offered for that purpose.
• United States v. Milian-Rodriguez
  828 F.2d 679· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to suppress evidence from the plane search as untimely, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for deposing foreign witnesses.
• United States v. Bramble
  641 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior marijuana possession conviction was error because it was not similar enough to the cocaine distribution charge to prove predisposition, and the trial court failed to conduct a Rule 403 balancing test. However, the court found that
• United States v. Alfonzo Lewis
  40 F.4th 1229· 11th Cir.· 2022-07-14 ·cited 14×
  Alfonzo Lewis challenged his federal convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine, arguing that a state court had previously found the traffic stop and search illegal, that certain jurors should have been dismissed, and
• Darrin Bernard Rogers v. State
  626 So. 2d 339· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-17 ·cited 14×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the trial judge erred in denying a requested jury instruction for a lesser-included offense made during closing arguments.
• United States v. Barbee
  968 F.2d 1026· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the investigative stop was based on reasonable suspicion, the search of the vehicle and luggage was permissible under the automobile exception, and while the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was erroneously given, it constituted harmless error. The evide
• United States v. Robinson
  967 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal prosecution did not violate due process, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally for collateral attack, the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, there was sufficient evidence for the conviction, and the sentence was pr
• United States v. Menesses
  962 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court reversed Harold Bratovich's conviction due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The court affirmed the denial of Barreto's motion to suppress her confession and the increase in her offense level.
• United States v. Diaz
  961 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence was permissible because it highlighted an inconsistency with his trial testimony, and the exclusion of one character witness's testimony was harmless error.
• United States v. Garrett
  959 F.2d 1005· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding probable cause to search the defendant's car and in excluding certain defense evidence, and that the application of the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines was lawful.
• United States v. Robinson
  956 F.2d 1388· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy and that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, tape recordings, transcripts, or evidence of prior marijuana conspiracy and imprisonment.
• United States v. Adan Chavez
  947 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 14×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that the district court's upward adjustment of Campos's sentence for being an organizer was not clearly err
• United States v. Uricoechea-Casallas
  946 F.2d 162· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence seized during a customs search of luggage at a border and incident to arrest was admissible, and that the defendant was not entitled to sentencing reductions for being a minor participant or for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  943 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's false statement about prior convictions to a probation officer constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and that the admission of a post-arrest statement regarding drug sales, while error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Erwin Sanchez
  943 F.2d 110· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car, thus lacking standing to challenge the search, and that sufficient evidence supported his conviction for knowing possession of cocaine.
• United States v. Berzon
  941 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 14×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  A defendant must be provided with notice and an adequate opportunity to comment on factual information used in sentencing, especially when that information comes from a separate proceeding.
• United States v. Samuels
  938 F.2d 210· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-21 ·cited 14×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Crack Cocaine
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, but the sentence was improperly based on a misinterpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines regarding prior juvenile convictions.
• United States v. Amable Garcia
  936 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to excuse jurors who had served on a prior narcotics trial, nor did it abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. McFarlane
  933 F.2d 898· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's sentence can be enhanced for a codefendant's possession of a firearm if that possession was known or reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
• United States v. Jenkins
  928 F.2d 1175· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict against Jenkins, and rejected Stephens' sufficiency-of-the-evidence and severance claims.
• United States v. Butler
  924 F.2d 1124· D.C. Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecutor's questioning and comments regarding the defendant's post-arrest silence did not violate due process, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on discovery, impeachment, jury instructions, or sentencing.
• United States v. Williams
  922 F.2d 737· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 14×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 845b does not require the defendant to know the minor's age, only that they knowingly employed someone in a drug offense. It also held that a defendant cannot receive a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on conduct for which th
• United States v. High
  921 F.2d 112· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the encounter between the defendant and the police officers was consensual, and therefore the Fourth Amendment was not implicated, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Benitez
  920 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. McCRAW
  920 F.2d 224· 4th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court should not conclude on admissibility without a full record development and proper analysis of attenuation and inevitable discovery doctrines.
• United States v. Garcia
  919 F.2d 881· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 14×
  Consideration of unadjudicated conduct at sentencing for adjustments or within the guideline range does not constitute punishment for that conduct, and therefore does not bar a subsequent prosecution for that conduct under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Bernardo Saenz
  915 F.2d 1046· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, upholding the upward adjustment for obstruction of justice and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Alvaro David de Leon Davis
  914 F.2d 340· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the supplemental jury charge was not plain error, and the prosecutor's closing argument comments were permissible.
• United States v. Velarde
  903 F.2d 1163· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 14×
  A warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle's trunk, conducted pursuant to standard police procedure and for legitimate governmental interests, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if contraband is discovered.
• United States v. Mack
  892 F.2d 134· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant waived certain procedural objections.
• United States v. Castellanos
  882 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a sentencing judge cannot rely on evidence from a co-defendant's trial to determine drug quantity for sentencing purposes if the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
• United States v. Stewart
  879 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was harmless error, the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was not plain error, and the statutory minimum sentence was not implicitly repealed by the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Williams
  873 F.2d 1102· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering the jury to continue deliberations after one juror expressed doubts during polling, as the trial court has discretion in such matters and no improper conduct occurred.