Possession With Intent To Distribute

2,534 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,907 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Walters
  591 F.2d 1195· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the search was a valid border search justified by reasonable suspicion, and that the appellant was not denied her constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Stevens
  521 F.2d 334· 6th Cir.· 1975-08-15 ·cited 59×
  The court held that while the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin were valid, the defendant should only receive one sentence because the single act of sale formed the basis for both convictions.
• United States v. Curran
  498 F.2d 30· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-28 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the marijuana found on the table was admissible because exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the house, and that the Jencks Act did not require production of agent reports at a pre-trial suppression hearing.
• United States v. Claudio Calderone
  917 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 58×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The double jeopardy rule announced in Grady v. Corbin does not bar the prosecution of the indictment in this case.
• United States v. Blackman
  904 F.2d 1250· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 58×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the search of the defendant's luggage was lawful, the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the evidence was sufficient for the money laundering convictions, the pistol was admissible, and the sentencing e
• United States v. Molinar-Apodaca
  889 F.2d 1417· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for drug and firearms offenses and rejecting constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Campbell
  843 F.2d 1089· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, and even if it ripened into a Terry-seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
• United States v. Russo
  796 F.2d 1443· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 58×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' challenges regarding misjoinder, severance, speedy trial rights, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of the evidence.
• United States v. Sutton
  794 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that dual representation did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the plea agreement was not breached. The court also held that the investigatory stop was justified by founded suspicion and that severance was not warranted.
• United States v. Ramirez
  796 F.2d 212· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and using a communication facility in furtherance of that conspiracy. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in allowing an FBI agent
• United States v. Rhodes
  779 F.2d 1019· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the five-person requirement for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848 does not require all five individuals to be supervised simultaneously, and that the defendants' sentences were not cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. Rivera
  775 F.2d 1559· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Platt's conviction on the nine telephone counts, reversing those convictions. However, the court affirmed the convictions of both Platt and Rivera on the charge of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribut
• United States v. Bibbero
  749 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was an error that was not harmless, and the government's violation of the Jencks Act required reversal.
• United States v. Manbeck
  744 F.2d 360· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding grand jury discrimination, dismissal of a count, suppression of evidence, and sufficiency of evidence, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Kabbaby
  672 F.2d 857· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 58×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the joinder of counts was proper under Rule 8 and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion. The admission of certain testimony was deemed harmless error.
• United States v. Nickerson
  669 F.2d 1016· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 58×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the improper bolstering of a key witness's credibility and the erroneous jury instruction on conspiracy proof constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  573 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 58×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
• United States v. Salinas-Salinas
  555 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy or possession of marijuana.
• United States v. Jackson
  526 F.2d 1236· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a prima facie case of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Garcia
  496 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 58×
  Prior Miranda warnings are not required to validate consent searches, and statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used to establish consent.
• United States v. Marcelle Lacouture
  495 F.2d 1237· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 58×
• United States v. Patterson
  492 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 58×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that customs agents had probable cause to search the appellants' vehicle for contraband, justifying the seizure of marijuana.
• United States v. Garcia
  897 F.2d 1413· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-19 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the stop was lawful, consent to search was valid, the scope of the search was justified by probable cause, Carlos had standing to challenge the search, and Jose's challenges regarding hearsay and jury instructions wer
• United States v. Mickey Turner
  898 F.2d 705· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 57×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed Turner's and Smith's sentences, but remanded Turner's for specific procedural compliance, vacated Beler's sentence, and remanded for resentencing due to factual errors.
• United States v. Meggett
  875 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 57×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the presence of firearms in a drug trafficker's apartment, where narcotics were stored and processed, constituted 'use' of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, even if the firearms were not fired or brandished at the scene of distribut
• United States v. Cardenas
  864 F.2d 1528· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 57×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficient for admissibility, and that constructive possession and carrying a firearm in a vehicle during a drug trafficking crime are valid grounds for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
• United States v. Sangineto-Miranda
  859 F.2d 1501· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 57×
• United States v. Guerrero-Guerrero
  776 F.2d 1071· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 57×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's inference that the defendants knew about the marijuana on board, and that the jury's verdict should not be overturned.
• United States v. Boldin
  772 F.2d 719· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the current prosecution for drug and RICO charges is not barred by double jeopardy, as the offenses are distinct and Congress intended for cumulative punishments.
• United States v. Dario Dicesare
  765 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Fulgencio Pantoja-Soto
  739 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 57×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict the defendants of drug trafficking offenses.
• United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
  719 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 57×
  The dissent argues that the en banc majority improperly inferred intent to distribute from evidence only showing intent to import, thus undermining the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Pintado
  715 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 57×
• United States v. Klein
  626 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendants was justified under Terry v. Ohio, and the subsequent detention of their luggage based on reasonable suspicion, followed by a canine sniff and a search warrant, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Vazquez
  605 F.2d 1269· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 57×
  The court held that delays of 7 to 13 days in sealing wiretap tapes were sufficiently explained by personnel and equipment shortages, and thus the tapes were admissible. The court also found that the wiretap authorization affidavits established probable cause.
• United States v. Evelio Mota and Juan Flores
  598 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a defendant's amnesia does not per se render them incompetent to stand trial, and that severance is not required when defenses are merely antagonistic rather than irreconcilable.
• United States v. Odom
  526 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the marijuana seized was properly admitted into evidence and that the statements made by Odom were admissible, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Miranda
  526 F.2d 1319· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 57×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the negligent loss of a crucial tape recording by the government, without bad faith, did not require suppression of testimony or a new trial, especially when the defense was aware of the loss during the trial and the overall evidence of guilt was strong.
• United States v. Henning
  906 F.2d 1392· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 56×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Methamphetamine
  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. Tetzlaff
  896 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 56×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the two-level enhancement for playing a primary role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) was improperly applied because the offense of conviction involved only one participant.
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• United States v. Henry
  878 F.2d 937· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-03 ·cited 56×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that while multiple § 924(c)(1) charges can stem from separate drug trafficking offenses, the indictment's failure to properly distinguish the predicate offenses for each firearm charge necessitates vacating one conviction.
• United States v. Klein
  860 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-04 ·cited 56×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the arrest and search of the defendant's vehicle were lawful, and the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) was constitutional.
• United States v. Magee
  821 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and importation of marijuana, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Miller
  821 F.2d 546· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of a borrowed car and that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for an illegal search, rendering the subsequent consent invalid.
• United States v. Keck
  773 F.2d 759· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting transcripts with speaker identities, or admitting certain conversations, and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. McHUGH
  769 F.2d 860· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 56×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of the pickup truck, and alternatively, that the warrantless search and seizure were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was
• United States v. Dempsey Buford Merida
  765 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding no merit in the defendants' assignments of error regarding evidence admissibility, discovery violations, and cross-examination restrictions.
• United States v. Yater
  756 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 56×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  A defendant waives the entrapment defense by pleading guilty, and a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) does not preserve the entrapment issue for appeal. Furthermore, the government's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to bar prosecution.
• United States v. Franklin
  728 F.2d 994· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine, but the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful. The conviction is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on simple possession.