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. Brown
  562 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence from a dismissed count without a cautionary instruction, nor in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or appoint an expert, and that the nondisclosure of certain informant statements was not prejudicial
• United States v. Gardner
  553 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception and that the defendant failed to prove a violation of the knock and announce statute.
• United States v. Goldfine
  538 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 54×
  A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is proper when a false statement is made during a legitimate administrative investigation, even if criminal prosecution is contemplated, and the statement has the intrinsic capability of influencing agency action.
• United States v. Wysong
  528 F.2d 345· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the legality of her arrest, the officers' entry into her motel room, the sufficiency of the search warrant, and the seizure of the ledger were without merit.
• Bolivar Irizarry v. United States
  508 F.2d 960· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the defendant's guilty plea, as the charge was not sufficiently identified, the explanation of conspiracy was inadequate, and the defendant's understandi
• United States v. Ingham
  502 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 54×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  A warrantless search of a vessel newly arrived from a foreign port is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without direct observation of its entry into United States waters, if circumstances provide reasonable grounds to believe it has made such an entry.
• United States v. McCORMICK
  468 F.2d 68· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 54×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the warrantless search of the van was constitutional based on probable cause derived from the odor of marijuana and suspicious circumstances, and that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible despite a delay in arraignment.
• United States v. Donaciano Hernandez-Escarsega
  886 F.2d 1560· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed convictions for continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise, but remanded for vacation of other conspiracy convictions due to impermissible cumulative punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Reed
  882 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 53×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed the conviction because probable cause existed to search the vehicle, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Beltran-Rios
  878 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony to rebut the defense's suggestion of poverty was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instruction on duress was not misleading.
• United States v. Coburn
  876 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing due to the district court's unconstitutional ruling on the Sentencing Reform Act.
• United States v. Walther
  867 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the government's reverse sting operation did not constitute outrageous conduct violating due process, and that various trial errors claimed by the appellants were either not errors or did not rise to the level of reversible error.
• United States v. Baker
  855 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, that evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and that prosecutorial misconduct did not deny defendants a fair trial.
• United States v. Pruitt
  763 F.2d 1256· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' claims regarding jury instructions, severance, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing.
• United States v. Elsoffer
  671 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the seizure of the suspect's ticket constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent detention and search were justified by probable cause arising from a suspicious bulge.
• United States v. Whitaker
  592 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-04 ·cited 53×
  The boarding, stop, and search of the vessel were constitutionally permissible due to probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Ivey
  546 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 53×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the search of the aircraft was a lawful border search, and the defendants' other claims of error were without merit.
• United States v. Mosley
  496 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the Bueno-type issue, where the defendant claims the government agent supplied the contraband.
• United States v. Martinez
  481 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-03 ·cited 53×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that a warrantless search of a truck 150 miles inland and 142 hours after crossing the border was constitutionally permissible under the border search exception due to reasonable suspicion, and that co-conspirator hearsay testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Ortega
  471 F.2d 1350· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-11 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying defendants' motions to identify, disclose the whereabouts of, or produce the government informant, as the informant's testimony was not shown to be essential to a fair determination of the issues.
• United States v. Jewel
  947 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 52×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Segun Ashimi
  932 F.2d 643· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor did it prejudice the defense, thus not violating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Jefferson
  925 F.2d 1242· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and thus had no Fourth Amendment claim, and that the erroneous admission of a pager bill was harmless error.
• United States v. Paiz
  905 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy, knowing participation, and applying the Pinkerton doctrine. It also upheld the use of the 'ostrich' jury instruction and rejected double jeopardy claims.
• United States v. Uribe
  891 F.2d 396· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-13 ·cited 52×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant waived his motion for acquittal by failing to renew it, that the sentencing was proper, that the judge's questioning did not constitute plain error, and that the voir dire was adequate.
• United States v. Kaufman
  858 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of counts and defendants was proper, and the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Romano
  825 F.2d 725· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 52×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a hearing to contest the pre-sentence report and in imposing the maximum sentence, as the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the information and the sentence was within statutory limits and proportionate to the
• United States v. Alicia Davis (85-1153)
  809 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in conducting an in camera hearing regarding peremptory challenges, as defendants' presence was not constitutionally required and their counsel had ample opportunity to present arguments. The court also affirmed the district cour
• United States v. Judd Carver Eisenberg
  807 F.2d 1446· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
• United States v. Smith
  802 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-16 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, the government's conduct was not outrageous, and inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal of a conviction.
• United States v. Cruz
  797 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 52×·via Possession Of Narcotics With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of cash and food stamps, expert testimony on food stamp use, co-conspirator statements, and cocaine vials, as these evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion and did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Brown
  761 F.2d 1272· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the wiretaps were lawfully authorized, the defendant waived his Speedy Trial Act claim, jury inconsistency between facilitation and underlying charges is permissible, and the defendant was not entitled to lesser-included offense instructions.
• United States v. Ligia Maria Valencia Gaviria and Martha Lucia Bedoya Lopez
  740 F.2d 174· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Bedoya's conspiracy conviction, reversing both appellants' conspiracy convictions. The court affirmed Valencia's conviction on the substantive count.
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Hillison
  733 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the majority erred in upholding Mansfield's conviction, as the evidence did not establish probable cause for his arrest.
• United States v. Patterson
  648 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that convictions must be reversed if jurors were prejudiced by knowledge of a defendant's prior trial, and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the right to remain silent. An investigatory stop is permissible even if it briefly restricts a suspect's fr
• United States v. Aguiar
  610 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-04 ·cited 52×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that a co-defendant's attorney's comments about another co-defendant's silence, if not intended to comment on that silence, do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that mere presence or knowledge of illegal activity is insufficient to prove particip
• United States v. Jackson
  627 F.2d 1198· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-29 ·cited 52×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Jackson's prior manslaughter conviction for impeachment, nor in admitting evidence of his voluntary return of money, and that the trial judge did not exhibit bias.
• United States v. Cecil
  608 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 52×
  An indictment must contain sufficient factual particularity to inform the defendant of the specific charges and enable preparation of a defense, and a bill of particulars or open file discovery cannot cure a fatally defective indictment.
• United States v. Ramirez
  608 F.2d 1261· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions of error were without merit or not substantial enough to warrant reversal of the criminal conviction.
• Pomerantz v. State
  372 So. 2d 104· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-15 ·cited 52×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  Pomerantz was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after police searched his checked luggage at Miami International Airport and found drugs. The court reversed, holding that police actively participated in an unreasonable warrantless search that violated
• United States v. Alonzo
  571 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-28 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the admission of flight evidence, hearsay testimony, and the restriction of cross-examination were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Riggins
  563 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Riggins' conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Rocha-Lopez
  527 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 52×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific articulable facts indicating potential alien smuggling, even though the defendant was ultimately convicted of marijuana smuggling.
• United States v. West
  511 F.2d 1083· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 52×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion is contrary to Masciale and unduly inhibits the fact finder's competence regarding entrapment.
• United States v. Williams
  503 F.2d 50· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 52×
• United States v. PUI KAN LAM
  483 F.2d 1202· 2d Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the warrantless electronic interception of a conversation in a stranger's apartment, under suspicious circumstances and with no reasonable expectation of privacy, was not illegal under the Fourth Amendment or the relevant statute. The court also found sufficie
• United States v. Alirio Hastamorir
  881 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 51×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
• United States v. Alvarado
  817 F.2d 580· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 51×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that giving a "Jewell" instruction on deliberate avoidance was error because the evidence pointed to actual knowledge, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the prosecutor's misstatement about a co-defendant's indictment was improper but harmless du
• United States v. Chilcote
  724 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 51×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.