Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Ward
  696 F.2d 1315· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Prows' appeal must be remanded for the district court to determine excusable neglect for his late filing, and that Ward's double jeopardy and due process claims lack merit.
• United States v. Nelly Pilar Ramirez-Cifuentes
  682 F.2d 337· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 32×
  A law enforcement agent's questioning of an individual, even when accompanied by a request to step aside, does not constitute a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment unless a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.
• United States v. Schwartz
  666 F.2d 461· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• United States v. MacPHERSON
  664 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a border search of a vessel within one-half mile of the U.S. coast is permissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict one defendant but not the other.
• United States v. Palumbo
  639 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 32×
  A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
• United States v. Johnson
  605 F.2d 1025· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a jury instruction on entrapment failing to specifically place the burden of proof on the government is deficient and warrants reversal.
• United States v. Houde
  596 F.2d 696· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for sanctions and continuance.
• United States v. Ruigomez
  576 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant was twice prosecuted for the same conspiracy, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Diaz
  577 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the currency found in the toilet tank was admissible under the plain view doctrine, as the officers were lawfully on the premises, the discovery was inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the bag was immediately apparent.
• United States v. Rumpf
  576 F.2d 818· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' motion for mistrial constituted a waiver of their double jeopardy claim, and that probable cause existed for their arrests and the search of the premises.
• United States v. Estrella
  567 F.2d 1151· 1st Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to disclose the informant's identity, nor was there a prejudicial variance between the arrest warrant and indictment, nor insufficient evidence of possession.
• United States v. Crisp
  563 F.2d 1242· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the identity of the substance as cocaine and that the nondisclosure of certain statements did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Gramlich
  551 F.2d 1359· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause, but the introduction of the seized evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Tuley
  546 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the pickup camper and the subsequent search of the mobile home were fruits of an illegal search, lacking probable cause based on an uncorroborated informant's tip.
• United States v. Kelly
  527 F.2d 961· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that all species and varieties of Cannabis are included in the proscription of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and that the evidence was sufficient to establish knowing possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Wilner
  523 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that striking irrelevant portions of an indictment does not constitute an amendment, and that a co-conspirator can be held liable for acts of the conspiracy under Pinkerton v. United States, even if not directly involved in every act. The court also found no Fourth
• United States v. Hill
  500 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that oral testimony supplementing a search warrant affidavit is permissible under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c) as it existed at the time, and that a warrantless automobile search can be constitutional under exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Stanton Freeman
  498 F.2d 569· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was a participant in the conspiracy, and his actions were more indicative of an accessory after the fact.
• United States v. Palazzo
  488 F.2d 942· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the search of the defendants' stowed luggage was unconstitutional as it lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances, but Viagran lacked standing to challenge the search of his co-defendants' luggage.
• United States v. De Angelis
  490 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation was within permissible bounds, despite defense counsel's prior improper remarks.
• United States v. Dillard T. Madden, Jr.
  482 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  474 F.2d 587· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that evidence of a subsequent, similar transaction is admissible to rebut an entrapment defense and show predisposition, and that the trial court did not err in denying a subpoena for an informer who could not be located.
• United States v. Medina
  887 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana and possession with intent to distribute marihuana.
• United States v. Brown
  872 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment or in admitting expert testimony and transcripts. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove one appellant's guilt of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Nestor Ruiz, Jr.
  860 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence under the manifest miscarriage of justice standard of review.
• United States v. MacDOUGALL
  790 F.2d 1135· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that it, not the jury, should decide double jeopardy claims. It also found that the evidence established separate conspiracies, thus rejecting the appellants' double jeopardy defense based on prior prosecutions.
• United States v. Reese
  775 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support most convictions, except for firearms charges against Thomas Reese, and that his sentences must be vacated due to potential influence from ex parte submissions.
• United States v. Romero-Galue
  757 F.2d 1147· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the "customs waters" definition in the Marijuana on the High Seas Act can extend beyond twelve miles via treaty or arrangement, allowing prosecution of foreign nationals on foreign vessels.
• United States v. Nicholson
  677 F.2d 706· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of knowing participation in the conspiracy, and the 'deliberate ignorance' jury instruction was appropriate.
• United States v. Abravaya
  616 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court's unsolicited jury instruction concerning plea bargains of unindicted co-conspirators did not prejudice the appellant.
• United States v. Padilla
  508 U.S. 77· U.S.· 1993-05-03 ·cited 30×
  A defendant can only challenge a search or seizure if their own Fourth Amendment rights were violated, not merely by association with a conspiracy.
• United States v. Morehead
  959 F.2d 1489· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 30×
  The court should reverse Mr. Hill's conviction because the jury's acquittal on underlying drug offenses renders the conviction for using a firearm during those offenses legally inconsistent and unsupported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Alcides Durades
  929 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary and that the jury instructions were adequate, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Wood
  924 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and that the admission of a letter, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error. However, the court found that one uncharged drug transaction was improperly included in calculating t
• United States v. Pigrum
  922 F.2d 249· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed Allen's convictions but vacated his sentence for resentencing, and vacated Pigrum's conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Prescott
  920 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court's refusal to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines is not appealable unless based on a mistaken belief of no discretion, and that the procedures used in determining the base offense level did not violate due process.
• United States v. Simmons
  918 F.2d 476· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, reasonable suspicion developed, and Simmons's reaction to the discovery of drugs on his companion provided probable cause for his search, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Lautaro CEA
  914 F.2d 881· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and use of a telephone to facilitate a drug offense, but insufficient to prove the 'substantial step' required for an attempt conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in sentencin
• United States v. Thomas
  906 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines without providing adequate, detailed reasons and without justifying the extent of the departure by linking it to the Guidelines' structure.
• United States v. Crawford
  883 F.2d 963· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in departing from the sentencing guidelines based on the quantity of drugs and the defendant's role in the offense, as these factors were not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission for simple possession.
• United States v. Acevedo
  891 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting her attorney's performance, and that the jury instruction regarding a 'measurable amount' of cocaine was proper.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Colonia
  870 F.2d 1319· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants' arrests and searches were based on probable cause, their consent to search was voluntary, and their convictions were not affected by minor discrepancies in the indictment language or potential attorney conflicts of interest.
• United States v. Montilla
  870 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea waives a due process claim of outrageous government conduct if establishing the claim requires further proceedings beyond the face of the indictment or record at the time of the plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring a ruling on the motio
• United States v. Garcia
  848 F.2d 1324· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge believes that permitting magistrates to conduct jury voir dire in felony cases raises serious constitutional questions and should be prohibited by supervisory power.
• United States v. Toro
  840 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court properly submitted the entrapment defense to the jury.
• United States v. Hornick
  815 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 30×
  Technical defects in a warrant do not require suppression of evidence, and statements made at a drug treatment center are admissible for sentencing purposes. Credit for pre-sentence time is determined by the Attorney General, not the sentencing court.
• United States v. Paradis
  802 F.2d 553· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on continuances, probable cause, search warrants, sufficiency of evidence, hearsay, prosecutorial comments, severance, or witness retaliation charges.
• United States v. Baresh
  790 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, restrictions on cross-examination, contempt citation of counsel, or in refusing to grant a mistrial. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and sentencing did not violate the double jeopa
• United States v. Rubiett Jenkins
  779 F.2d 606· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for appellants Quarterman, Prather, and McTeer, but reversed Jenkins' conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court also found no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof o