Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Hansen
  569 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments for reversal were unpersuasive, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• 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. Severiano Olivarez Gonzalez
  548 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err by not conducting a Jackson v. Denno hearing because the defendant waived the right to such a hearing by failing to properly challenge the admissibility of his confession. The court also held that collateral estoppel did not bar tes
• United States v. Cantu
  504 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a Border Patrol checkpoint located seventy miles from the border was a valid border search, but that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession for two of the three defendants.
• United States v. Gardner
  475 F.2d 1273· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Gardner's conviction for simple possession, and reversed Le Boulanger's conspiracy convictions due to lack of substantial evidence for a third conspirator.
• United States v. Carrazana
  921 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 33×
  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. Diaz-Carreon
  915 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knowingly imported and possessed marijuana with intent to distribute, and that prosecutorial comments, while improper, did not substantially affect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• 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. Carcaise
  763 F.2d 1328· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the informant's testimony was valid, the offenses did not merge, and the special parole terms were constitutional.
• United States v. Savage
  701 F.2d 867· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the government's conduct in providing an opportunity to commit drug offenses did not violate due process, and that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence and motions for a mistrial.
• United States v. Regan
  687 F.2d 531· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 33×
  A 22-hour detention of a traveler's suitcase based solely on reasonable suspicion, without probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• 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. Todisco
  667 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that pre-trial motions to suppress evidence were properly denied, including evidence obtained from pen registers, wiretaps, warrantless arrests, and searches, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding continuances or j
• United States v. Mann
  615 F.2d 668· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that convictions for conspiracy to import and possess marijuana were affirmed, but the conviction for carrying firearms during a felony was reversed. Sentencing was remanded for reconsideration.
• United States v. Ashcroft
  607 F.2d 1167· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 33×
• United States v. Hoyt Albert Gaultney
  606 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 33×
  The court should have suppressed evidence found during a warrantless search of premises based on an informant's tip.
• United States v. Bullock
  551 F.2d 1377· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the 16-day delay caused by a pre-trial motion to sever was excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act and the District Court's Plan, and that the trial court did not err in its discovery rulings or jury instructions.
• 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.
• United States v. Felts
  497 F.2d 80· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, that sufficient evidence supported his convictions for conspiracy and distribution, and that denial of his pre-trial discovery motion was not prejudicial.
• United States v. McDONALD
  935 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and that various procedural and sentencing issues raised on appeal lacked merit.
• United States v. Davern
  937 F.2d 1041· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Sentencing Commission's prescribed sentencing steps are inconsistent with the governing statute, and that the alleged aggravating circumstances were not adequately considered by the Commission.
• United States v. Stanley
  928 F.2d 575· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a district judge cannot depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines based solely on a perceived disparity caused by prosecutorial plea-bargaining practices, as such disparities are generally within the prosecutor's discretion and not considered 'unwarranted
• 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. Blanche Elizabeth Dyer
  910 F.2d 530· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional and that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is sufficient for sentencing fact-finding.
• United States v. Nestor Julio Perez-Garcia
  904 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing, finding that while the admission of a codefendant's statement was erroneous and violated the confrontation clause, it did not constitute plain error requiring reversal due to sufficient independent evidence. Prior acts
• United States v. Hurtado
  905 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 32×
  The government must prove voluntary consent to a warrantless search by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
• United States v. Baker
  905 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 32×
  A drug conspiracy is not a proper predicate offense for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) conviction, and a 'continuing series of violations' requires at least two substantive offenses, not three. Evidence was insufficient to convict Wireman of conspiracy.
• United States v. Ira Glen Anthony Walters
  904 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of a photograph of a defendant holding a firearm was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug conspiracy and related offenses.
• United States v. Emigdio Aponte-Suarez
  905 F.2d 483· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and substantive drug offenses, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims regarding conspiracy multiplicity, juror proficiency, mistrial denial, and evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Ferrer-Cruz
  899 F.2d 135· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior drug convictions was an error because it was unfairly prejudicial and not properly admissible under Rule 404(b).
• United States v. Bennie Ree White
  890 F.2d 1413· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that experienced officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain the defendant based on a totality of the circumstances, and that a subsequent search warrant was validly issued.
• United States v. Aart Vanwort
  887 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's finding of a single conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the absence of an objection to jury selection by a magistrate meant reversal was not required under Gomez v. United States. The court also found no abuse of discretion in
• United States v. Price
  869 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the border patrol agents had lawful grounds to stop and search the vehicle, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions.
• United States v. Rojas
  868 F.2d 1409· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and that the district court did not err in calculating the offense level or refusing a downward departure.
• United States v. DOE
  860 F.2d 488· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence regarding Honduran government authorization for boarding was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24), and prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, while improper, did not constitute reversible error given the o
• United States v. WYK
  840 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.
• United States v. Franchi-Forlando
  838 F.2d 585· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for importing and possessing cocaine were valid, and that the convictions did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
• United States v. Williams
  822 F.2d 1174· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the seizure and opening of the bag were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after juror contact.
• United States v. Alvarez
  810 F.2d 879· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest, and therefore, the evidence and statements obtained from the arrest should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Johnson
  802 F.2d 1459· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances and that while the admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement was improper bootstrapping, it was harmless error due to defense counsel's failure to object on that ground
• United States v. Silvestri
  790 F.2d 186· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on various narcotics charges, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, Fifth Amendment claims, jury instructions, cross-examination limitations, and admission of coconspirator statements.
• United States v. Larson
  760 F.2d 852· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a defendant who stayed in a motel room beyond the paid occupancy period and without paying for an extended stay lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy, and that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search. The court also held that the evidence was
• United States v. Pirolli
  742 F.2d 1382· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• 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. Catalino Collazo
  732 F.2d 1200· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that allowing jury use of unverified transcripts with cautionary instructions was not an abuse of discretion, but a warrantless search of a home requires suppression of evidence absent exigent circumstances or valid consent.
• United States v. Crisco
  725 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 32×
  The district court's finding that the statement was not the result of custodial interrogation is clearly erroneous.
• Fitzgerald v. United States
  719 F.2d 1069· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a lesser included offense instruction.