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. Davis
  679 F.2d 845· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the indictment did not suffer a constructive amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Burns
  624 F.2d 95· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the agent's eavesdropping was lawful, and the drug-sniffing dog's actions did not constitute a search. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's inference of intent to distribute for two de
• United States v. Manzella
  791 F.2d 1263· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 93×
  A defendant cannot be convicted of possession of drugs based on constructive possession without evidence of ultimate control over the drugs, and a flawed jury instruction on co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States can lead to reversal.
• United States v. Acosta-Cazares
  878 F.2d 945· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 91×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad acts evidence, properly denied the motion for acquittal on the firearm charge, and correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for obstruction of justice.
• United States v. McNEESE
  901 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrants, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate material omissions from the affidavit under the Franks test.
• United States v. Blanco
  888 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 90×
  A sentencing court may consider drug quantities not covered by counts of conviction if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, and a defendant's entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not automati
• United States v. Buenaventura Martinez
  763 F.2d 1297· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 90×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered after a new trial was granted, and that the district court erred in granting the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Aguilar-Pena
  887 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-12 ·cited 88×
  A district court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines based on general community sentiment or the incidence of crime in a particular locality, as these factors are considered by the Sentencing Commission and departures must be based on circumstances specific to the offender a
• United States v. Evelio Pinto
  875 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender provision, are constitutional and properly applied, and that residential burglary qualifies as a crime of violence.
• United States v. Zapata
  871 F.2d 616· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction, refusing to strike testimony after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment, or admitting hotel registration records. Any error in the jury instruction regarding pr
• United States v. Gordon
  895 F.2d 932· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence, finding the district court erred in granting a two-level reduction for minor participant status without sufficient factual basis.
• United States v. Harrell
  737 F.2d 971· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
• United States v. McLAIN
  823 F.2d 1457· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of judicial errors and prosecutorial misconduct, along with a conflict of interest affecting one defendant's counsel, deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Robinson
  690 F.2d 869· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to accompany the agent to an office was not voluntary, rendering his subsequent arrest illegal and the discovered cocaine inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
• United States v. Clark N. Fischel
  686 F.2d 1082· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-10 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of government inducement to warrant an entrapment jury instruction and that the jury charge on aiding and abetting was adequate. The court also found that the denial of access to the informant's address, whil
• United States v. McKINNELL
  888 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-27 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was valid under exceptions for searches incident to arrest and probable cause, that possession with intent to distribute is a valid predicate offense for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and that th
• United States v. Webster
  649 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 82×
  Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a defendant's predisposition in entrapment cases, except in limited circumstances to rebut specific assertions of government misconduct.
• United States v. Calixto Agapito
  620 F.2d 324· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 82×
  The court held that agents' eavesdropping by pressing an ear to a connecting door did not violate the Fourth Amendment, arrests were based on probable cause, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room, though illegal, did not require reversal of convictions.
• United States v. Martin
  599 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause for every named probable converser in a wiretap application, and that an innocent, immaterial misstatement in an affidavit does not invalidate a wiretap order. The court reversed Davenport's conviction for f
• United States v. Prout
  526 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and distribution convictions, the search warrant for the premises was valid, and the government's failure to disclose all details of a witness's deal was harmless error.
• United States v. Wilmer Stanley Snow
  521 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 82×
  The court held that statements of a co-conspirator, even if hearsay, are admissible if made in furtherance of the conspiracy and if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy and the declarant's and defendant's connection to it, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause if
• United States v. Castillo
  866 F.2d 1071· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 80×
  The dissenting judge believes the warrantless protective sweep of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances and that evidence seized should be excluded.
• United States v. Bennett Goldstein and James Edward Kern
  635 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a canine sniff of the exterior of luggage does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and the positive alert provided probable cause for a search warrant.
• United States v. Restrepo-Granda
  575 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-19 ·cited 80×
  The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding of knowledge for the drug charges and that the 'deliberate ignorance' jury instruction was proper. The conviction for unlawful use of a passport and visa was also affirmed.
• United States v. Musser
  856 F.2d 1484· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-04 ·cited 79×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence for aiding and abetting, the prosecutor's arguments were proper or invited error, and the sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act were constitutional.
• United States v. Ubaldo Trevino and Ramiro Gonzalez
  556 F.2d 1265· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-03 ·cited 79×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the presentence report was not discoverable under the Jencks Act, Brady, or Rule 16 because these provisions are directed toward evidence in the hands of the prosecutor.
• United States v. Theron Clark
  475 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-08 ·cited 79×
  The court held that excluding the defendant and the public from a suppression hearing, except for the limited portion concerning secret profile criteria, was plain error. Additionally, the trial judge's jury instructions were so deficient as to constitute plain error.
• United States v. Nixon
  918 F.2d 895· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded for resentencing for some, finding no error in wiretap evidence, transcript use, or most evidentiary rulings, but remanding for resentencing consistent with guidelines.
• United States v. Sophie
  900 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
• United States v. Guzman
  864 F.2d 1512· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a pretextual stop is unconstitutional if a reasonable officer would not have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose, and that the scope of a traffic stop is limited to its initial justification unless reasonable suspicion of other crimes exists.
• United States v. Whitehead
  849 F.2d 849· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 78×
  A passenger train sleeping compartment is analogous to a hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a search without probable cause and a warrant violates a passenger's legitimate expectation of privacy.
• United States v. Richardson
  764 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the government's use of a confidential informant did not constitute overreaching, evidence of prior bad acts was admissible, taped conversations were properly admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and a variance between the indictment a
• United States v. Jones
  913 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Buckner
  894 F.2d 975· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-22 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the '100 to 1 ratio' of cocaine to cocaine base in the Sentencing Guidelines is rationally related to Congress's objective of protecting public welfare and does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause or the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual pu
• United States v. Serafin Alfonso
  759 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the search of the vessel was a valid extended border search, and the admission of prior acts evidence against Alfonso was an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Moya
  721 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the 'reasonable doubt' test, not the 'hypothesis of innocence' test, is the proper standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.
• United States v. Robinson
  625 F.2d 1211· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-17 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the magistrate erred in finding that voluntary consent automatically purged the taint of an illegal seizure, and that the issue of taint requires further factual findings. The court affirmed the finding of voluntary consent to accompany officers and to the sea
• United States v. Espinosa
  827 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the initial detention and subsequent arrest were based on reasonable suspicion and not a pretext for a search, and that the search warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. Expert testimony was properly admitted.
• United States v. Obregon
  748 F.2d 1371· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, the detention was lawful, consent to search was voluntary, and statements made after invoking counsel were admissible because the defendant initiated further communication.
• United States v. James ("Jake") Rohrer
  708 F.2d 429· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for drug offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Valentine
  706 F.2d 282· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or denying severance motions, but that multiple convictions for simultaneous possession and receipt of firearms were improper.
• United States v. Smith
  918 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Zambrana
  841 F.2d 1320· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the wiretap affidavits sufficiently demonstrated the necessity of electronic surveillance.
• United States v. Menichino
  497 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 74×
  Incriminating statements volunteered by a defendant during booking, after being advised of Miranda rights and requesting an attorney, are admissible if not made in response to interrogation about criminal activity. The admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement is permissi
• United States v. Rivera
  944 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 73×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Elena Vila and Johnny Rivera for drug offenses. The court held that while the government committed a discovery violation by disclosing Rivera's statement about suitcase ownership late, it did not prejudice his substantial rights. T
• United States v. Espinosa
  782 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the defendant's detention at the border patrol checkpoint was lawful, his consent to search was voluntary, and the search did not exceed the scope of his consent.
• United States v. Missick
  875 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 72×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding the district court improperly departed from the Sentencing Guidelines based on co-conspirators' weapon possession.
• United States v. Bennett
  848 F.2d 1134· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the admission of William Bennett's prior drug smuggling convictions was proper under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, and that the use of a single interpreter for multiple Spanish-speaking defendants did not violate their statutory or constitutional rights. The court
• United States v. Wood
  834 F.2d 1382· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 72×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, affirmed the sentence enhancement on Count I, while the dissent argues that the jury's not guilty verdict on Count III, combined with the jury instructions, means no finding was made as to the amount of cocaine, thus preclud
• United States v. Opager
  589 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of business records and the government's failure to disclose an informant's whereabouts constituted reversible error.