Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Griffin
  765 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to raise a multiplicity claim on direct appeal bars its consideration in a § 2255 petition unless good cause is shown, and that Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2) requires such claims based on the indictment to be raised before trial.
• United States v. Estrada
  751 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 30×
  The court's opinion is concurred with, but the precise effect of joining lesser convictions with a greater conviction is unclear.
• United States v. Roberts
  747 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and separate convictions for manufacturing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute are permissible under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
• United States v. Garcia
  741 F.2d 363· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, illegal searches, or improper testimony, and sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts.
• United States v. Leon
  739 F.2d 885· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Mendia
  731 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the heroin by turning it over to a third party and that the district court correctly denied a motion to grant immunity to a prospective defense witness.
• United States v. Castaneda-Castaneda
  729 F.2d 1360· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 30×
• United States v. Pino
  729 F.2d 1357· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 30×
• United States v. Lopez-Martinez
  725 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, and evidence of a prior offense was admissible, because the defendant need not know the specific type of controlled substance, only that it was a controlled substance, and the prior offense was relevant to his knowledge claim
• United States v. Pugliese
  712 F.2d 1574· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that expert testimony on heroin use was admissible and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and drug offenses.
• United States v. Martorano
  709 F.2d 863· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 30×
  The dissent argues that the conviction for possession with intent to distribute should be reversed because the government maintained complete dominion and control over the controlled substance, preventing the defendant from ever possessing it.
• Sperling v. United States
  692 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's current motion to vacate his continuing criminal enterprise conviction should be rejected due to inconsistent positions taken in prior proceedings.
• United States v. Jones
  687 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence despite chain of custody questions, in allowing the government's case agent to remain in the courtroom, or in admitting expert testimony based on a manufacturer's sample, and that the defendant
• United States v. Ochoa-Sanchez
  676 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that using a defendant's post-arrest silence for impeachment is a deprivation of due process, unless the silence is inconsistent with prior statements.
• United States v. Whitley
  670 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the use of a transponder and that the admission of co-conspirator testimony and the jury charge were not reversible error.
• United States v. Robertson
  659 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless.
• United States v. Martell
  654 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the twenty-minute detention of the appellants' luggage, based on a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and did not require probable cause.
• United States v. Hill
  622 F.2d 900· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction should be affirmed because no reversible error was committed regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, speedy trial rights, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Hilton
  619 F.2d 127· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 30×
  The Coast Guard's boarding and search of the vessel on the high seas was constitutional under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), and the evidence seized was admissible.
• United States v. Byers
  600 F.2d 1130· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the searches of abandoned vessels and that the evidence presented was sufficient for conviction, including evidence of a prior offense and an overt act.
• United States v. Moreno
  588 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that searches and arrests were lawful.
• United States v. Davis
  582 F.2d 947· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants' claims regarding undisclosed plea agreements, denial of pretrial motions, and evidentiary rulings lacked merit.
• United States v. Muckenthaler
  584 F.2d 240· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause and was not overbroad, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the conspiracy convictions.
• United States v. Hunter
  550 F.2d 1066· 6th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the arrest of defendant Hunter lacked probable cause, thus suppressing the evidence found on her. However, defendant Allen lacked standing to contest the search of Hunter, as his own Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
• United States v. Cheung KIN Ping and Lai Mong Wah
  555 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions were proper, Cheung's double jeopardy and delay claims were meritless, and the admission of his statements, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lai's claims regarding interpreter use and the handl
• United States v. Hickman
  523 F.2d 323· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the agents lacked probable cause to search the decoy boat, and the majority's reliance on Chambers v. Maroney was misplaced.
• United States v. Morell
  524 F.2d 550· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the government's failure to disclose exculpatory information about an informant was deliberate or negligent, and to determine compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 regarding the entry of the premi
• United States v. Dozier
  522 F.2d 224· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-10 ·cited 30×
• United States v. Prieto
  505 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• United States v. Hopkinson
  492 F.2d 1041· 1st Cir.· 1974-03-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of prior criminal activity evidence, copies of rental agreements, and expert testimony on street value were either admissible or harmless error, and that the defendants' entrapment defense was not supported by the evidence.
• United States v. Barron
  472 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was constitutionally permissible, and subsequent flight and discovery of marijuana odor provided probable cause for the search.
• United States v. Rodriquez-Camacho
  468 F.2d 1220· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague and sufficiently states an offense against the United States, as Congress has the power to regulate intrastate activities affecting interstate commerce.
• United States v. Miles Davis Saunders
  973 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were applied constitutionally.
• United States v. Gomez-Norena
  908 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony for background and expert testimony on intent to distribute was not plain error, as the defendant failed to properly preserve objections.
• United States v. Leavitt
  878 F.2d 1329· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all eight defendants, finding sufficient evidence to support their involvement in the drug importation scheme and rejecting their various challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Horsley
  864 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the prosecutor's vague explanation for striking the sole black juror was insufficient to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, and the district court erred in requiring a pattern of strikes to establish such a case.
• United States v. Cuevas
  847 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 29×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding legitimate currency exchange practices, which was material to the defendant's defense, violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense and necessitates a new trial.
• United States v. Carrion
  809 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to an entrapment instruction if they demonstrate predisposition to commit the crime, and that consecutive sentences for possession with intent to distribute and distribution are permissible if there is independent evidence of prior
• United States v. Miller
  769 F.2d 554· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the opening of a fiberglass container constituted a search requiring a warrant, as the contents were not obvious and did not meet the single-purpose container exception.
• United States v. Rigoberto Euceda-Hernandez
  768 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by suppressing the defendants' post-arrest statements as a sanction for delayed discovery under Rule 16, as a continuance would have been a less severe and sufficient remedy.
• United States v. Herzbrun
  723 F.2d 773· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the defendant's actions at the airport security checkpoint, including his attempt to withdraw consent to a search and subsequent flight, provided probable cause for his arrest and the seizure of his bag.
• United States v. Hawkins
  681 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 29×
  A defendant's disavowal of ownership and privacy interest in an item at the time of a search negates a reasonable expectation of privacy, precluding suppression of evidence found therein.
• United States v. Dunn
  674 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 29×
  The court held that warrantless searches of Dunn's ranch violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of his convictions, but affirmed Carpenter's convictions due to insufficient evidence to support his appeal.
• United States v. Garza-Hernandez
  623 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's car was constitutional as it was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession.
• United States v. Gomez-Tostado
  597 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 29×
  Possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute within the United States is unlawful under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), regardless of whether the intended distribution is in a foreign country, and a specific transshipment statute does not preclude prosecution under the g
• United States v. Ramos
  572 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 29×
• United States v. Cervantes
  542 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-16 ·cited 29×
• United States v. Myles J. Connor, Jr.
  950 F.2d 1267· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 28×
  The court should not resolve sentencing departure issues on appeal, as this infringes on the district court's discretion.
• United States v. Didier Alba
  933 F.2d 1117· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while two grounds for downward departure were valid, two others were not, and because the sentencing judge expressed doubt, a remand for resentencing is necessary.
• United States v. Valencia-Lucena
  925 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed all convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing, finding the district court's downward departure from sentencing guidelines was improper.