Possession With Intent To Distribute Methamphetamine

104 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Whitten
  706 F.2d 1000· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 159×
  The court held that the evidence seized was admissible, affirming the convictions, as the searches, while having some irregularities, were substantially lawful and the evidence obtained fell within the scope of the warrants or exceptions thereto. The court also found the evidence
• United States v. Streeter
  907 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 106×
  The court held that a district court's departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires specific findings of circumstances not adequately considered by the Commission, and that the Drug Quantity Table's equivalency of 100 grams per marijuana plant is invalid as applied when the stat
• United States v. Pungitore
  910 F.2d 1084· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the RICO statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the appellants' conduct and that prior state acquittals for predicate offenses did not bar their federal RICO prosecution under the dual sovereignty doctrine.
• United States v. Grayson
  795 F.2d 278· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 79×
  Prosecution for RICO and CCE after a prior conspiracy conviction does not violate double jeopardy, but consecutive sentencing for CCE and its conspiracy predicate offense does. The court remands for resentencing for Michael Grayson.
• United States v. Williams
  798 F.2d 1024· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 72×
  The court reversed Debbie Williams' conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed convictions for David Williams and Wayne Russell.
• United States v. Johnson
  513 F.2d 819· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-01 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the cumulative weight of the evidence, including Johnson's presence in the car, his association with Loewe, and his false statements, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was guilty of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the importati
• United States v. Bennie Ray Winship
  724 F.2d 1116· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 64×
  The court held that convictions for two separate conspiracy counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the evidence indicated a single conspiracy to distribute multiple drugs.
• United States v. Henning
  906 F.2d 1392· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the initial traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion, the subsequent search was incident to a lawful arrest, and the failure to define 'in relation to' was not plain error. However, multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for a single underl
• United States v. Casto
  889 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, jury instructions were proper, the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea with a limiting instruction was not reversible error, chain of custody issues did not render evidence inadmissible, sentencing o
• United States v. Bommarito
  524 F.2d 140· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Wharton's Rule does not bar conviction for conspiring to violate the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. McQUISTEN
  795 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the defendant should not receive separate punishments for conspiracy and attempt when they arise from a single course of conduct.
• United States v. Gomberg
  715 F.2d 843· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 42×
  A conspiracy count is not duplicitous for having multiple objectives, and a defendant convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise should not receive separate sentences for conspiracy and underlying predicate offenses.
• United States v. McMANAMAN
  606 F.2d 919· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the admission of a recorded conversation for impeachment purposes was permissible, the admission of the entire conversation, including highly prejudicial discussions of murder plans, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Brock
  667 F.2d 1311· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 38×
  The court affirms convictions, finding warrantless beeper surveillance permissible under Ninth Circuit precedent.
• United States v. Kinder
  946 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred by not applying the rule of lenity when sentencing appellants under a harsher penalty provision, requiring resentencing. Other challenges were rejected.
• United States v. Jennings
  945 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court must inquire into defendants' reasons for seeking new counsel and that the case must be remanded for resentencing regarding the drug quantity calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Schubel
  912 F.2d 952· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's constructive possession of the methamphetamine and destructive device, and intent to distribute, supporting his conviction.
• United States v. Parrish
  736 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the admission of prior conviction evidence, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, venue, or severance rulings.
• United States v. Laird
  948 F.2d 444· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not newly discovered evidence under Rule 33 when the appellant was aware of the facts at the time of trial. The court also affirmed the sentencing decisions.
• United States v. Felix
  926 F.2d 1522· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Grady v. Corbin, barred successive prosecutions for the same conduct, requiring reversal of convictions based on conduct already used to establish a prior conviction.
• United States v. Woolbright
  831 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. Shaw
  920 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute based on inconsistent penalty provisions if the district court sentenced him under the less severe provision, and that the oral sentence pronouncement prevails over a conflicting writte
• United States v. Schrock
  855 F.2d 327· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was properly indicted for conspiracy to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance and that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about alleged illicit transactions without scientific proof of the substance's identity.
• United States v. Kerr
  817 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the deputy sheriff's actions constituted a fourth amendment stop without founded suspicion, requiring suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Gaskins
  849 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court's violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, by giving an aiding and abetting instruction after stating it would not, prejudiced the defendant and required reversal of both counts.
• United States v. Bertram
  805 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the search and seizure were lawful, the trial judge's conduct did not deny a fair trial, evidentiary rulings were within discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Johnson
  690 F.2d 60· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 23×
• United States v. Lendmann
  757 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 22×
  A person who manufactures a controlled substance without registration, even if for use as an intermediate step in a process that would destroy the substance, violates the Controlled Substances Act.
• United States v. Gentry
  642 F.2d 385· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the seized evidence was admissible under the plain view exception and nexus rule, and that the government's conduct did not violate due process or constitute entrapment.
• United States v. Rusher
  966 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 21×
  The court must decide whether an investigatory stop can be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment due to an officer's subjective intent, as the majority misapplied the subjective standard.
• United States v. Sitton
  968 F.2d 947· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession for Dewbre and Sitton. The court also affirmed other convictions and evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Wanless
  882 F.2d 1459· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 20×
  The court should have applied federal law, not state law, to determine the admissibility of evidence seized during an inventory search. Federal law does not require owner consent for such searches if conducted according to standard procedures.
• United States v. Sutton
  850 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle, making the denial of his motion to suppress proper.
• United States v. Shovea
  580 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence derived from an X-ray search of a suitcase against defendants other than the owner, nor in admitting evidence obtained via an electronic tracking device, and that the destruction of investigatory notes did not
• United States v. Walker
  960 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the weight of liquid waste containing methamphetamine should be included in calculating offense levels under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that delays from pre-trial motions toll the Speedy Trial Act clock indefinitely. It also affirmed that methamphetamine r
• United States v. Calisto
  838 F.2d 711· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid despite omissions in the affidavit, and the defendant's incriminating statement was admissible as it was not the product of custodial interrogation.
• United States v. Burnes
  816 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant did not make a sufficient preliminary showing to warrant a Franks hearing and that the Attorney General lawfully delegated authority to reclassify controlled substances to the DEA.
• United States v. McKNIGHT
  953 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the refusal of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was proper, the search warrant was valid under the good-faith exception, and the sentence was correctly calculated.
• United States v. Sanders
  937 F.2d 1495· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that border patrol agents have broad discretion to refer motorists to secondary inspection and that the discovery of a firearm in plain view at the secondary inspection area created reasonable suspicion justifying further detention and questioning.
• United States v. Smallwood
  920 F.2d 1231· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly included the potential yield of methamphetamine from seized precursor chemicals in calculating the defendant's sentence under the guidelines, and that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent.
• United States v. Greenwood
  974 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's cross-appeal of sentences and that the district court erred in sentencing based on a lower schedule of controlled substances. The court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences for resentencing.
• United States v. Singer
  943 F.2d 758· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the no-knock entry was justified by exigent circumstances, and the evidence seized was admissible in federal court.
• United States v. Andrus
  925 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's active involvement in manufacturing methamphetamine precluded minor participant status, and the government did not breach the plea agreement by opposing the reduction.
• United States v. Dumas
  658 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror, limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of an extraneous offense, or in its jury instructions on entrapment, and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• United States v. Stewart
  595 F.2d 500· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Chadwick is not to be applied retroactively, and the search of the attaché case was reasonable under pre-Chadwick Ninth Circuit law.
• United States v. Wilson
  930 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the use of drug courier profile evidence, even if improper, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and that pretrial services statements could be used for impeachment.
• United States v. Yeagin
  927 F.2d 798· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of the defendant's nine prior felony convictions was prejudicial error because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Barron
  594 F.2d 1345· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants, the entrapment defense was not established as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in refusing to strike testimony from government witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment, and the defendants were
• United States v. Rodriguez
  75 F.4th 1231· 11th Cir.· 2023-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of the premises enhancement but vacated and remanded for resentencing on the supervised release conditions that were not orally pronounced.
• United States v. Servando Reyes-Alvarado
  963 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed both appellants' convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of a codefendant's statement due to invited error, sufficient evidence for conviction, denial of a new trial motion, and the factual basis for a guilty plea.