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. Maichle
  861 F.2d 178· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior drug-related acts to prove intent and in ruling that a ten-year-old conviction could be used for impeachment.
• United States v. Rengifo
  858 F.2d 800· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless arrests and seizures were justified by exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hinds
  856 F.2d 438· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant's description of 'cocaine paraphernalia' was sufficiently particular and that the search of the premises did not exceed the warrant's scope. The admission of hearsay statements and testimony about a seized gun was also deemed proper.
• United States v. Vazquez
  857 F.2d 857· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that bringing two suspects together, even with inconsistent prior statements, does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda unless police actions are designed to elicit an incriminating response. The court also held that newly discovered evidence of a w
• United States v. Plain
  856 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 14×
  A district judge's consideration of parole eligibility guidelines in sentencing does not constitute an abuse of discretion or a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, even if the judge's understanding of those guidelines is later found to be mistaken.
• United States v. Rios
  856 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding the credibility of law enforcement officers were not clearly erroneous, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute coc
• United States v. Goggin
  853 F.2d 843· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for importation and conspiracy to import cocaine, and that any error in the jury instruction regarding importation did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Bernardo L. Zabalaga
  834 F.2d 1062· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle and its contents, that sufficient evidence supported his conviction for constructive possession of cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Bourbon
  819 F.2d 856· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence, disclose the informant's identity, limit cross-examination, or admit the grey notebook into evidence.
• United States v. Ramos
  818 F.2d 1392· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the collective knowledge of the arresting officers was sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless arrest, and the district court's finding of probable cause was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Randle
  815 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant the opportunity to impeach a key witness, overruling objections to jury instructions, admitting co-conspirator statements, admitting evidence of weapons, or denying a motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Oswald
  783 F.2d 663· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant abandoned the automobile and its contents, including the briefcase, by fleeing the scene of a car fire and making no effort to retrieve them, thus forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy.
• United States v. Strong
  775 F.2d 504· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-11 ·cited 14×
  A defendant convicted of a specified narcotics offense is presumed to be a danger to the community, and must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are not likely to flee or pose a danger if released pending sentencing.
• United States v. Silverman
  771 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements implicating the defendant as a co-conspirator were properly admitted under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) and that a flight jury instruction was also proper.
• United States v. Heriberto Leon
  766 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that even without relying on the statutory presumption, the evidence of threats made by the defendant to prospective witnesses was sufficient to justify his pretrial detention.
• United States v. Hoelscher
  764 F.2d 491· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for conspiracy and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine, and that evidence from other counts was properly considered for identification.
• United States v. Countryman
  758 F.2d 574· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make the required express finding that the defendant would not benefit from sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
• United States v. Saldarriaga-Marin
  734 F.2d 1425· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Customs officials had reasonable suspicion to detain and search individuals entering the United States for narcotics, and that such searches, including x-rays and administration of laxatives, are permissible under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspi
• United States v. Diez
  736 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. West
  731 F.2d 90· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 14×
  The detention of luggage for a narcotics dog sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the DEA agents acted with diligence and provided adequate information to the suspect.
• United States v. Ember
  726 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×
  The government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even if the acquittal was based on erroneous evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Saulo Alegria
  721 F.2d 758· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's statements to agents were voluntary and that he consented to the search of his automobile, thus denying his motion to suppress.
• United States v. Perate
  719 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the initial stop of the limousine was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion to dismiss one count of the indictment. However, the court also held tha
• United States v. Constanza D'Allerman
  712 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 14×·via Possession Of Cocaine Hydrochloride With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the appellant voluntarily consented to the X-ray examination, making the evidence of cocaine admissible.
• United States v. Mendez-Jimenez
  709 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit provided a 'clear indication' of internal body smuggling, justifying the magistrate's order for an x-ray search.
• United States v. Rollins
  699 F.2d 530· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the airplane was permissible under the automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest, and that probable cause existed to arrest the appellants.
• United States v. Jensen
  689 F.2d 1361· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent request for consent to search were not Fourth Amendment seizures because a reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave.
• United States v. Eddy
  660 F.2d 381· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the imminent risk of evidence destruction, and that evidence seen in plain view was lawfully seized.
• United States v. Delos-Rios
  642 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and that the search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. White
  607 F.2d 203· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove knowledge of the cocaine, the warrantless search of the briefcase was justified by exigent circumstances, and any errors in admitting evidence were harmless.
• United States v. Carter
  590 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 14×
  Customs inspectors had reasonable suspicion to conduct a personal search of the appellant, revealing cocaine.
• United States v. Hernandez
  588 F.2d 346· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's financial difficulties, but that the special parole condition prohibiting the defendant from returning to the United States was beyond the court's authority.
• United States v. Ricco
  566 F.2d 433· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that using suppressed wiretap recordings to refresh a witness's recollection before trial does not violate the statutory prohibition on disclosure or use of such recordings.
• United States v. Wood
  545 F.2d 1124· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and search of the vehicle were supported by probable cause, and the defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntary and admissible.
• United States v. Godkins
  527 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 14×
  The court should have ordered an in camera hearing to determine the necessity of witness Doe's information, balancing the defendant's right to prepare a defense against the government's interest in informant secrecy.
• United States v. Braddy
  11 F.4th 1298· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-31 ·cited 13×
  James Bernard Braddy appealed his conviction for drug possession charges, challenging the legality of a traffic stop, its prolongation, and the subsequent search of his vehicle based on drug detection dog alerts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Braddy
• Zamara Janice Williams v. State
  110 So. 3d 59· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-03-08 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Williams appeals her conviction for constructive possession of marijuana found in a closed black bag in a rental car she was driving with two passengers. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State failed to establish sufficient evidence of her dominion and control over
• Ramirez v. State
  125 So. 3d 171· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-01-16 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Andrew Ramirez was convicted of trafficking in hydrocodone and possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trafficking conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the prescription defense, which was Ram
• Petion v. State
  4 So. 3d 83· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-03-04 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Gerald Petion appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and unlawful use of a false name. The appellate court reverses his marijuana conviction due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession in a jo
• Fluellen v. State
  703 So. 2d 511· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-12-23 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Fluellen challenges his convictions for cocaine possession with intent to sell and drug paraphernalia possession. The court reversed, finding three significant trial errors: admission of hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip, improper expert testimony regarding drug quantity a
• United States v. Williams
  963 F.2d 1337· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 13×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Crack Cocaine
  The court held that the district court erred in finding a due process violation based on the referral to federal prosecution and improperly departed from sentencing guidelines. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of juven
• United States v. Glover
  957 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the subsequent detention of the defendant's bags was justified by reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Rigoberto Matos
  905 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while most of the defendant's claims lacked merit or were waived, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel required a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Roberson
  897 F.2d 1092· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on Count 2, the denial of the motion to suppress for Count 4 was proper, and procedural errors were harmless. However, the forfeiture of substitute property was improperly valued.
• United States v. Ramirez
  894 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that similar act evidence was properly admitted, hearsay was correctly excluded, and the jury instruction on flight was adequate.
• United States v. John Garcia (86-6110)
  866 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the search of Garcia's luggage was consensual and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Wolfe, affirming the convictions.
• Acy Reynold LEE v. State
  530 So. 2d 349· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-22 ·cited 13×·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Vidal Moreno
  742 F.2d 532· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendant did not voluntarily consent to accompany the officers, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Reubin W. Peaden
  727 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay statements for a non-hearsay purpose (to show why a witness remembered a conversation) was not an abuse of discretion, even without a limiting instruction, as it did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Emilio Sorzano and Jose Abujasen
  602 F.2d 1201· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-19 ·cited 13×
  Prosecutor's comments on uncontradicted testimony and rhetorical questions about defendants' presence were not improper and did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.