Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Tejada
  886 F.2d 483· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about a drug ledger, excluding impeachment testimony, allowing testimony in Spanish with an interpreter, and denying a motion to merge possession and distribution counts.
• United States v. Civelli
  883 F.2d 191· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by giving a supplemental jury instruction on conscious avoidance of knowledge, even after closing arguments, as the evidence supported the charge and the jury's inquiry necessitated it.
• United States v. LaFRANCE
  879 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the five-and-a-quarter-hour detention of a Federal Express package, based on reasonable suspicion and culminating in a positive drug sniff, was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Angelita Gotay
  844 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that post-arrest statements made after an ambiguous or clear request for counsel, without further clarification or waiver initiated by the defendant, should have been suppressed. The admission of these statements was not harmless error for the distribution counts.
• United States v. Ascarrunz
  838 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statements made after a defendant's arrest are admissible if made in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy by an unarrested co-conspirator. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in den
• United States v. Chase
  838 F.2d 743· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a jury can rationally find guilt for simple possession as a lesser included offense of possession with intent to distribute, even if the prosecution's evidence suggests distribution, and that cautionary instructions regarding extrinsic evidence were adequate.
• United States v. Gonzalo Zapata-Tamallo
  833 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that consent to search was voluntary, the defendant lacked a privacy interest in the searched bag, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and a lesser included offense instruction was not warranted.
• United States v. MAY
  819 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act and the motion to suppress evidence, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Alvarado
  806 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions and that any violations of the Doyle rule by the prosecutor constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  804 F.2d 691· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defenses of the two defendants were not mutually antagonistic, and therefore, severance was not required.
• United States v. Cardenas
  778 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of a new trial, holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not prejudicially affect the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Diaz-Albertini
  772 F.2d 654· 10th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge juror bias by failing to raise the issue promptly and that the search was lawful based on voluntary consent.
• United States v. Petz
  764 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the record did not clearly establish an unequivocal waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel, deferring the issue to a collateral proceeding.
• United States v. Collins
  764 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the appellant's statements and financial records, and the transfer of evidence from Customs to the DEA was valid.
• United States v. Humphrey
  759 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's warrantless, suspicionless daytime boarding of a sailboat on the high seas for a safety inspection, and the subsequent discovery of contraband below deck after officers gained lawful entry due to a safety concern, did not violate the Fourth A
• Moya v. United States
  745 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government waived the issue of probable cause by failing to raise it timely, and that the prolonged detention of the suspect's luggage violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Jeraline Ayotte
  741 F.2d 865· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the convictions of Labadie and Logan were supported by sufficient evidence and properly admitted testimony, while Ayotte's conviction was reversed due to an erroneous restriction on her cross-examination.
• United States v. Porter
  738 F.2d 622· 4th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the detective had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on a corroborated informant's tip and that the warrantless search of her bag was lawful as incident to that arrest.
• United States v. Sperling
  726 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose a tape recording did not warrant a new trial or hearing, as it was unlikely to have affected the verdict. Other claims of error were also found to be without merit.
• United States v. Woods
  720 F.2d 1022· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the appellants based on the totality of the circumstances, and that statements made during the initial investigatory detention were admissible as they were not made during custodial interrogation.
• United States v. Curra-Barona
  706 F.2d 1089· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for conspiracy to possess marijuana and possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Elio Quesada-Rosadal
  685 F.2d 1281· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that prior inconsistent statements from a suppression hearing can be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Capers
  685 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and his subsequent statements were voluntary and admissible.
• United States v. Coletta
  682 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Caucasian male defendants lack standing to allege discrimination in grand jury foreperson selection as an equal protection violation, and their allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim. The court also upheld the denial of motions to suppress
• Gaines v. State
  406 So. 2d 523· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-11-04 ·cited 20×
  Dr. Gaines was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of Dilaudid with intent to distribute based on a pharmacist's identification of his voice verifying a fraudulent prescription. On appeal, Gaines challenged the date variance in the charging information and the admissi
• United States v. Boone
  641 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the appellant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy, that venue was waived, and that the joint trial did not prejudice the appellant.
• United States v. Haynie
  637 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the searches and seizures conducted were valid under the Fourth Amendment, and thus the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. Bennie Carter
  613 F.2d 256· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and affirmed their convictions.
• United States v. Guido
  597 F.2d 194· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Arizona prosecution for conspiracy was for the same offense as the prior California conviction, violating double jeopardy principles and requiring reversal under the court's supervisory power.
• United States v. Carter
  592 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 20×
  A Drug Enforcement Administration agent may participate with customs inspectors in conducting a border search without violating constitutional or statutory law.
• United States v. Sanfilippo
  581 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's supplemental jury charge and refusal to judicially notice a witness's prior false testimony were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Prince Page, Jr.
  580 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for distributing heroin, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute heroin.
• United States v. Lucinda Palmer
  575 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search was a lawful border search, and the level of intrusion was reasonable given the specific suspicions.
• United States v. Abrahamson
  568 F.2d 604· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of an informant's statement was harmless error and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Boria
  518 F.2d 368· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to record Spanish testimony in Spanish and to compel the government to produce an informant, as the current translation system was constitutional and the government had not acted with sufficient pr
• United States v. Barcenas
  498 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's non-responsive answer suggesting the appellant may have been in jail, and the jury's verdict form, did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.
• United States v. Mack
  494 F.2d 1204· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a sentence corrected to include a statutorily mandated parole term does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, imposing that term in the defendant's absence renders the sentence illegal and subject to challenge under Rule 35.
• United States v. Purin
  486 F.2d 1363· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of evidence found on the appellant and her post-arrest statements were proper, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict Da Silva of conspiracy.
• United States v. Brettholz
  485 F.2d 483· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior cocaine sales was proper to show intent, and excluding marijuana evidence was not error as it was not part of the charges.
• United States v. Nunez
  483 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and substantive counts of importing and possessing marijuana, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Irby
  480 F.2d 1101· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the required intent elements for each count, and that the defendant's conviction on one count was sufficient to support the concurrent sentences.
• United States v. Miles
  480 F.2d 1215· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in restricting the cross-examination of a government witness regarding pending charges and in allowing a rebuttal witness, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Lonnie Banks & Alexander Hepburn
  475 F.2d 1367· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding impeachment testimony and properly instructed the jury on entrapment, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Ira Silverman (90-3205)
  976 F.2d 1502· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard is insufficient for determining relevant conduct in sentencing, particularly when it involves uncharged or acquitted criminal activity.
• United States v. Liranzo
  944 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed Liranzo's conviction, finding no breach of the proffer agreement, but vacated Garcia's sentence, holding his criminal facilitation conviction did not qualify as a 'controlled substance offense' under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Lem Hughes
  924 F.2d 1354· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a prior state felony drug conviction, arising from a separate criminal episode and final at the time of the instant offense, properly serves as a predicate for the twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
• United States v. Mauricio Borrero-Isaza
  887 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court impermissibly enhanced the defendant's sentence based on his national origin, rather than his involvement in drug trafficking from a source country.
• United States v. Encarnacion Moreno
  878 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the Batson challenge, that evidence was sufficient to convict Moreno for importing cocaine, but insufficient to convict Orguiza for conspiracy, and that the trial court erred by failing to make an on-the-record finding
• United States v. Valdes
  876 F.2d 1554· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that warrantless seizures of vehicles used to facilitate drug transactions, based on probable cause, are permissible under 21 U.S.C. § 881(b)(4) and do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Maldonado
  849 F.2d 522· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed because his challenges regarding jury selection, sufficiency of evidence, and multiplicitous counts lack merit.