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. Masse
  816 F.2d 805· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest statements were admissible as the defendant was not in custody, and subsequent statements were admissible as they were voluntary and informed waivers after Miranda warnings. Co-conspirator statements and jury instructions
• United States v. Santamaria
  788 F.2d 824· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied due process, but the special parole term was improperly imposed and the case must be remanded for compliance with Rule 32.
• United States v. Hamm
  786 F.2d 804· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance or the motion to suppress, but erred in failing to make findings on disputed facts in the presentence report.
• United States v. August Males, Jr.
  715 F.2d 568· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that venue was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence and that the admission of prior drug transaction testimony was proper as it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses. Furthermore, comments made during closing arguments did not consti
• United States v. Cuaron
  700 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge argues that the warrantless entry and search were not justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers failed to attempt to obtain a telephone warrant.
• United States v. Ivo Martinez-Gonzalez
  686 F.2d 93· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence seized from apartment 7F was admissible because the agents had probable cause to arrest Martinez and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
• United States v. DeLUCCA
  630 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a mistrial after the government dismissed defendants in the jury's presence, nor was the evidence insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Grayson
  597 F.2d 1225· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the border search was reasonable, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the refusal to give a specific 'two hypotheses' jury instruction was not error.
• United States v. Pruett
  551 F.2d 1365· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the seizure of the vehicle containing marijuana was unlawful, requiring suppression of that evidence.
• United States v. Reynaldo Ramirez-Rodriquez
  552 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-25 ·cited 36×
  Sufficient evidence existed to establish intent to distribute cocaine, even if the pure quantity was less than 10 grams, when considering the unusual amount in a prison context, potential resale value, and the defendant's lack of addiction to cocaine.
• United States v. Nieto
  510 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was legal because the seizing officer had probable cause, and the car's mobility created exigent circumstances.
• United States v. DeLEON
  498 F.2d 1327· 7th Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial, including issues related to a defendant's absence, jury instructions, cross-examination restrictions, and the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. Forbicetta
  484 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the search of the defendant at the border was lawful, and her convictions for importing and possessing cocaine are affirmed.
• United States v. Smith
  924 F.2d 889· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and use of a communication facility, vacated one firearm conviction due to improper dual predicate offenses, and affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct and the refusal of an entrapment instru
• United States v. Munoz-Fabela
  896 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) provides an independent basis for criminal liability and does not require an underlying drug-trafficking conviction as a predicate for punishment.
• United States v. Kenroy Laing
  889 F.2d 281· D.C. Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the officers' actions in stopping and searching Laing were reasonable under the circumstances, and that the jury's inconsistent verdicts did not invalidate Martin's conviction.
• United States v. Mosquera-Ramirez
  729 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 35×
• United States v. Falsia
  724 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence, refusing a specific jury instruction, denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, or excluding juror declarations regarding deliberations.
• United States v. Ann (LNU) Decker and Larry J. Vice
  543 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that vicarious liability under Pinkerton v. United States is applicable to narcotics distribution conspiracies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes.
• United States v. Gordon-Nikkar
  518 F.2d 972· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that testimony regarding conversations in an attorney's office was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because a non-client was present and the conversations concerned plans to commit perjury. The court also held that excluding resident aliens from feder
• United States v. Slocum
  464 F.2d 1180· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-19 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the pre-boarding screening program, including the use of a magnetometer and the FAA Profile, was constitutional and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search of the defendant's luggage was justified by exceptional circumstances.
• United States v. House
  939 F.2d 659· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were properly admitted, evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the sentence for possession of cocaine base was constitutional.
• United States v. Payne
  940 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that defendants' sentences were improperly enhanced based on crack cocaine amounts not charged in the indictment or proven at trial.
• United States v. Carrazana
  921 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress wiretap evidence, finding probable cause, necessity of surveillance, and proper duration. It also found sufficient evidence for convictions, denied severance, and deemed expert testimony admissio
• United States v. Brown
  915 F.2d 219· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is a general intent crime and the phrase "in relation to" does not add a substantive element requiring specific intent to use the firearm. The evidence of carrying a pistol to protect drug sale proceeds is sufficient to support a convicti
• United States v. Ellis
  890 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the defendant was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous, and thus no reduction in offense level was warranted.
• United States v. MacHor
  879 F.2d 945· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 34×·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of co-conspirator statements, the denial of a motion to substitute counsel, the refusal to exclude the case agent, or the limitation of cross-examination.
• United States v. Latham
  874 F.2d 852· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while a defendant's voluntary drug ingestion may not automatically excuse absence, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of the defendant's absence and by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Vasquez
  858 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the car and apartment, and that the scope of cross-examination and admission of fingerprint evidence were proper. The court also affirmed the conviction based on a Pinkerton
• United States v. Zavala-Serra
  853 F.2d 1512· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that co-conspirator statements were admissible and that Zavala lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as applied to others.
• United States v. Calle
  822 F.2d 1016· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the limitation on cross-examination of the government's witness was proper, the exclusion of the defense witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion and substantially prejudicial.
• United States v. Pantazis
  816 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the seizure of the defendant's shoulderbag was justified by reasonable suspicion, and thus the evidence found within it was admissible.
• United States v. Brock
  782 F.2d 1442· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 34×
  Pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show actual prejudice, and post-indictment delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act due to the defendant's evasion and procedural delays.
• United States v. Cotton
  770 F.2d 940· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in jury instructions, search and seizure, or prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Dupuy
  760 F.2d 1492· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a district court errs by accepting conceded Brady material and failing to disclose it or determine its discoverability. The prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland cannot be shifted to the court.
• United States v. Palumbo
  735 F.2d 1095· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that even if the warrantless arrest and seizure were unlawful, the error was harmless because sufficient independent evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Hultgren
  713 F.2d 79· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that warrantless arrests and searches within a third party's home were justified by exigent circumstances, and that the indictments sufficiently stated the operative time periods for the alleged conspiracies.
• United States v. Morin
  665 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the second stop of the defendant constituted an illegal arrest because it was not supported by probable cause and was a successive stop based on the same information. The defendant's subsequent disclaimer of luggage was tainted by this illegal arrest.
• United States v. Williams
  633 F.2d 742· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence, and the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
• United States v. Lopez-Diaz
  630 F.2d 661· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's finding of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous, and thus, the confession was admissible.
• United States v. Dohm
  597 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government can use a criminal defendant's statements made in a pre-trial bail hearing to prove guilt at trial, contrary to established precedent.
• United States v. Rajeh Kazni
  576 F.2d 238· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the alleged hearsay evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt and that the record did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
• United States v. Bockius
  564 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike testimony or in its jury instructions, as the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from discovery violations and the court's comments did not shift the burden of proof.
• United States v. Turbide
  558 F.2d 1053· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to order the government to produce the informer, and that any misjoinder of counts was harmless error.
• United States v. Wayne
  903 F.2d 1188· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial on Counts III and V, denying the motion to suppress evidence, or in its sentencing determinations.
• United States v. Isidro Olivier-Becerril
  861 F.2d 424· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search the vehicle's trunk was voluntary and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of knowledge of the hidden cocaine.
• United States v. Trullo
  809 F.2d 108· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the investigative stop, particularly the drawing of a weapon, was not justified by the specific articulable facts and thus exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop.
• United States v. Irizarry
  673 F.2d 554· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the search of the ceiling aperture was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Ashcroft
  607 F.2d 1167· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 33×
• United States v. Fuiman
  546 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 33×
  Inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction if there is sufficient evidence for the conviction, and supplemental jury instructions were not reversibly deficient.