Possession With Intent To Distribute

2,528 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• 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. Vasquez
  534 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedures, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Horsley
  519 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that convictions for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of hashish oil do not violate constitutional privacy rights and that disclosure of presentence reports is within the trial court's discretion.
• 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. James
  495 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose tape recordings until trial did not constitute reversible error because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
• 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. 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. Perry
  788 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 35×
  The court reversed the district court's order releasing the defendant, finding that the statutory presumption of danger to the community was not rebutted and that the Bail Reform Act's preventive detention provisions are constitutional.
• United States v. Walker
  772 F.2d 1172· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen evidence to allow the defendant to testify.
• United States v. Loyd
  743 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in not dismissing Count V against David and Hood due to double jeopardy, and that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard under the Jencks Act, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• United States v. Mosquera-Ramirez
  729 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 35×
• United States v. Bernal
  719 F.2d 1475· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that evidence of drug paraphernalia and cash found in the defendant's home was admissible, and incriminating statements made during a chance encounter with an agent were also admissible. However, the court reversed the firearm conviction due to insufficient evidenc
• United States v. Kubiak
  704 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all three appellants, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to suppress, dismissals under the Speedy Trial Act, sufficiency of evidence, or Brady Act claims.
• United States v. Vadino
  680 F.2d 1329· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-19 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, co-conspirator statements were admissible, the search of Stephans' home was lawful, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The jury instructions on entrapment were sufficient when considered as a whole.
• United States v. Green
  671 F.2d 46· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding and search of the Persistence was lawful, as it was conducted with the consent of the flag state and based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment or relevant treaties and statutes.
• United States v. Auviene D'Antignac
  628 F.2d 428· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-20 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the facts were sufficient to support a limited investigatory stop of the vessel.
• United States v. Renteria
  625 F.2d 1279· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to rule on motions to suppress and by not conducting a Jackson v. Denno hearing on the voluntariness of the confession, requiring remand for these determinations. The court also remanded to determine if the jury heard prejudici
• United States v. Arden Lee Smith aka Alfredo Lama
  609 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 35×
• United States v. Roel Angel Trevino
  565 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior similar offenses was proper and that the jury instruction regarding the defendant's right to remain silent did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Amador Garcia, Jr.
  546 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not raise the issue of entrapment, as there was no indication the defendant's cousin acted as a government agent.
• 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. Leichtnam
  948 F.2d 370· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the police's forced entry complied with the knock-and-announce statute, and that the defendant's argument regarding constructive amendment of the indictment was not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Bernardo Bruce
  939 F.2d 1053· D.C. Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that mere possession of a firearm intended for future use in drug distribution, without evidence of its use to protect the drugs themselves, is insufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
• 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. Doran
  882 F.2d 1511· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make contemporaneous findings required by the Speedy Trial Act for an "ends of justice" continuance, leading to dismissal of two counts. The court also found no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness for the superseding
• United States v. MacHor
  879 F.2d 945· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 34×
  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. Anguiano
  873 F.2d 1314· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a multiple conspiracies instruction, nor did it commit plain error by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction, as the indictment and evidence did not create a genuine possibility of juror confusion.
• United States v. Silverman
  861 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the extrajudicial statements of an alleged co-conspirator because the independent evidence presented was insufficient to corroborate those statements and establish the defendant's connection to the conspiracy by a preponde
• 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. Melchor DE LOS Santos
  810 F.2d 1326· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence or the motion to reveal the identity of the confidential informant, and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the in camera proceeding.
• 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. 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. Sneed
  705 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a prior conviction reversed on grounds other than evidentiary insufficiency does not preclude a double jeopardy claim if the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient.
• United States v. Pozos
  697 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during a felony, and that the trial court did not err in denying a change of venue or suppressing evidence.
• United States v. Lilla
  699 F.2d 99· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the eavesdropping warrant was insufficient because it failed to demonstrate that normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed or were unlikely to succeed. Therefore, the wiretap evidence was improperly obtained.
• United States v. Harrison
  679 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the wife's consent to search the shared storage area was valid, and that other evidence admitted was either harmless error or admissible under evidentiary rules, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. EK
  676 F.2d 379· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 34×
  The court affirms the trial court's judgment, but a concurring judge disagrees with the majority's dicta regarding the standard for X-ray searches.
• 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. Lewis
  626 F.2d 940· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever counts, admitting the prior conviction for impeachment, or in finding sufficient evidence for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Taylor
  603 F.2d 732· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that neither double jeopardy, preindictment delay, nor a witness's remark about prior criminal activity warranted reversal of the conviction.
• 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. Wallace
  578 F.2d 735· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the federal prosecution did not violate the Petite policy and that the defendants' other challenges to their convictions lacked merit.
• 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.