Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Teal
  582 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that both appellants knowingly participated in the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine.
• United States v. Carter
  576 F.2d 1061· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 22×
  A defendant can be convicted and sentenced for both possession with intent to distribute and distribution of narcotics when the acts involve discrete quantities and require different proofs, even if committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy.
• United States v. Valentin
  569 F.2d 1069· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence seized was admissible and sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Herminio Cruz
  568 F.2d 781· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 22×
  Prosecution for conspiracy to distribute heroin after conviction for possession with intent to distribute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Ochoa
  564 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper and the prosecutor's closing remarks did not constitute plain error, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Silla
  555 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety and in the context of the whole trial, were not misleading and did not warrant reversal, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hodge
  539 F.2d 898· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to submit the entrapment defense to the jury for Appellant Hodge, but affirmed Appellant Robertson's convictions.
• United States v. Marcela Flores
  540 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper under the 'hot pursuit' exception to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions for polygraph admission, discovery of informant's past testimony, or in its sentencing
• United States v. Hipolito Cruz Pagan
  537 F.2d 554· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit contained no material misstatements requiring suppression, the warrantless search of the van was justified under the automobile exception, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Regan
  525 F.2d 1151· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was valid because the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on collective knowledge and the exigencies of the situation.
• United States v. Montiell
  526 F.2d 1008· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of evidence found in plain view, and an inadvertent misstatement in the jury charge did not constitute plain error as it did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Myron DiNOVO and Janet DiNovo
  523 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, but the evidence was insufficient to prove Janet DiNovo's constructive possession of the heroin.
• United States v. Seijo
  514 F.2d 1357· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the undisclosed prior conviction of a key government witness, coupled with his false denial of it on the stand, deprived the appellants of a fair trial, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Wells
  506 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to consider each count separately, even if entrapment applied to earlier counts.
• United States v. Miranda
  494 F.2d 783· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it cited the relevant statute and the alleged conduct could not be lawful under the circumstances. The court also found no plain error in the prosecutor's closing statement or the jury instructions.
• United States v. Bursey
  491 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that warrantless searches of vehicles were violative of the Fourth Amendment rights because they were not justified as border searches or searches based on probable cause.
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. LEE
  483 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's alibi defense was irrelevant to the conspiracy charge, and the concurrent sentence doctrine rendered the alibi instruction issue moot for the substantive offense.
• United States v. Cristancho-Puerto
  475 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-10 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Sherrod
  964 F.2d 1501· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the destruction of evidence did not violate due process, the district court's drug quantity findings were not clearly erroneous, and the DEA had the authority to schedule P2P.
• United States v. Rusher
  966 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 21×
  The court must decide whether an investigatory stop can be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment due to an officer's subjective intent, as the majority misapplied the subjective standard.
• United States v. Wake
  948 F.2d 1422· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the schoolyard statute applies when a defendant possesses drugs with intent to distribute them somewhere, even if the distribution itself does not occur within the 1,000-foot zone. The court also held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence o
• United States v. Wing Fook LUI
  941 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while admitting drug courier profile testimony was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction for minimal or minor participant status.
• United States v. Sanders
  928 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the "design to conceal or disguise" element required for money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) for two car purchases.
• United States v. Miranda-Ortiz
  926 F.2d 172· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 21×
  A defendant's conviction for conspiracy is affirmed if evidence shows knowledge of the collective venture, but the sentence must be recalculated if prior conduct was not known or reasonably foreseeable.
• United States v. Thomas
  900 F.2d 37· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine offenses does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause, and that a conspiracy conviction can stand despite the acquittal of a co-conspirator.
• United States v. Spain
  825 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the 1973 subdelegation of authority to the DEA did not extend to the 1984 Act, and no proper order was issued to place the drug on Schedule I.
• United States v. Godoy
  821 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act by improperly extending the indictment period and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing reprosecution without prejudice.
• United States v. Kovac
  795 F.2d 1509· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 21×
  The court should not have reached the issue of whether federal or state law governs the validity of a state search warrant in a joint investigation, as the warrant is valid under both standards and the officers relied on it in good faith.
• United States v. Barragan
  793 F.2d 1255· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the admission of testimony regarding a radio conversation was not prejudicial, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence imposed did not violate due process.
• United States v. Zamora
  784 F.2d 1025· 10th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed convictions for manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, finding sufficient evidence for both appellants and rejecting claims of error regarding expert testimony, informant disclosure, and jury instructions.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez
  777 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, separate convictions for distribution and possession were appropriate, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the indictment was sufficient. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Hirst
  668 F.2d 1180· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, in its jury instructions, or in denying severance or a new trial, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Elliott Caplan
  633 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to a sanity examination and that the trial court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on competency, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Jairo Enrique Rada-Solano
  625 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-05 ·cited 21×
  Illegally obtained statements may be used for impeachment, and a deliberate ignorance jury instruction is permissible when facts support it.
• United States v. Bates
  512 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a prosecutor's brief, unchallenged comment on a defendant's failure to testify, when followed by curative jury instructions, did not constitute plain error warranting reversal.
• United States v. Morris
  977 F.2d 617· D.C. Cir.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
• United States v. Vargas
  945 F.2d 426· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possessing and conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Billy Joe Chambers (89-1381)
  944 F.2d 1253· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act requires a certification prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction for prosecuting juveniles as adults, and that a hearing is required to determine if prosecution as an adult is in the interest of justice. Convictions of
• United States v. Rugerio Valdiosera-Godinez and Alejandro Garcia-Gil
  932 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of drug possession and conspiracy, that the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper, and that the denial of the motion to suppress and the sentencing enhancement were correct.
• United States v. Mena
  925 F.2d 354· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 20×
  A district court's refusal to depart downward from a Guideline sentence based on a mistaken belief that it lacks the power to do so, absent a government motion, is appealable. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of possession and that a downward departu
• United States v. Farmer
  924 F.2d 647· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for RICO and other offenses, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous claims of error, including double jeopardy, insufficient interstate commerce nexus, and improper evidentiary or sentencing rulings.
• United States v. REY
  923 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred that evidence seized under a warrant, though potentially overbroad in scope, was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
• United States v. Moore
  919 F.2d 1471· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 20×
  Consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are impermissible for multiple firearms involved in a single drug trafficking offense. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the machine gun charge and the search warrant's validity.
• United States v. Millan
  912 F.2d 1014· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 20×
  The dissent argues that the majority erred by not applying the Leon good faith exception to cure the taint of evidence obtained during an invalid detention, and that reasonable suspicion existed for the initial stop.
• United States v. Johnson
  911 F.2d 1394· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Marion Johnson, Marshall Johnson, and Willie Lee Dancy, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• United States v. Anders
  899 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court provided sufficient notice of its intent to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines and that the upward departure was justified by the defendants' conduct and criminal history. The court also held that Weddle was not a minimal participant and
• United States v. Silverio Corral
  899 F.2d 991· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the initial traffic stop was based on reasonable suspicion, the driver voluntarily consented to the search of the vehicle, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.
• United States v. Ferryman
  897 F.2d 584· 1st Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that for drug distribution offenses committed during the 'hiatus period' under the 1984 version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), ADAA § 1004 preserved the preexisting special parole requirements, making it obligatory.
• United States v. Valencia-Roldan
  893 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 845b is a separate offense statute, not a sentence enhancement, and does not require proof that the defendant knew the minor's age.