Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Salazar
  805 F.2d 1394· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that probable cause to search a specific container found in a car does not justify a warrantless search under the automobile exception, and affirmed that a conviction cannot be upheld on a new legal theory raised sua sponte by the appellate court without prior oppo
• United States v. DeJESUS
  806 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that co-conspirator hearsay statements were admissible against a defendant if independent evidence showed membership in the conspiracy, and that cumulative sentences could be imposed for simultaneous possession of different controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 8
• United States v. Foluso Akinseye
  802 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed because the jury found them predisposed to commit the crime, and that the pretrial waiver of joint representation was valid despite the court not conducting a further inquiry when one defendant testified.
• United States v. Lehmann
  798 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the observed bulge, suspicious behavior, and drug courier profile, making the subsequent search incident to a valid arrest constitutional.
• United States v. Torres
  793 F.2d 436· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the use of standby counsel, and that the limitation on the interpreter, while an error, was harmless.
• United States v. Mosquera
  779 F.2d 628· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with intent to import and distribute.
• United States v. Isaura Figueroa Cepeda
  768 F.2d 1515· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into an agreement to commit a conspiracy, reversing her conviction.
• United States v. Barrientos
  758 F.2d 1152· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a proper cautionary instruction regarding a co-defendant's midtrial acquittal, this error was not reversible. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Correa-Arroyave
  721 F.2d 792· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper, the prosecutor's comments were not misconduct, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Gordon
  712 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the stop of the truck was constitutional based on reasonable suspicion, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, but insufficient for the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Balliviero
  708 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or excluding evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Compton
  704 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant abandoned the bag of cocaine, thus lacking standing to challenge its seizure, and that his consent to search his car was voluntary. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Sockwell
  699 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and substantive drug offenses, and that the admission of coconspirator guilty pleas and a brief mention of plea bargaining did not prejudice the defendant, nor did the separate conspiracy
• United States v. Alvarez
  696 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the failure to conduct a Rule 44(c) inquiry is not reversible error unless an actual conflict of interest is demonstrated. The court also held that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy to admit coconspirator statements and sup
• United States v. Alvaro Chaparro-Almeida
  679 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's random search of an American vessel on the high seas was valid, and the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Barry
  673 F.2d 912· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 18×
  The Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant for unauthorized seizure and chemical analysis of suspected controlled substances.
• United States v. Morisse
  660 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search warrant and its affidavit were valid, and the substantive distribution conviction was not fatally infected by evidence related to the conspiracy count. The court vacated the conspiracy conviction for judicial economy.
• Sharpe v. United States
  660 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in applying a strict time limit to Terry stops and in its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's application to containers found in vehicles.
• United States v. Villamonte-Marquez
  652 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to board the vessel, making the search and seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Biondich
  652 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Velez
  652 F.2d 258· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to recharge the jury on willful membership in the conspiracy, when responding to a jury's request for clarification, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Marvalene Moody
  649 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the border search and seizure were valid, and the consideration of the appellant's non-cooperation in sentencing was permissible as an explanation, not an enhancement.
• United States v. Camillo Vargas
  643 F.2d 296· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendants' vehicle was a legitimate investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent seizure of cocaine in plain view was valid.
• United States v. Berrojo
  628 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a judge may take judicial notice of facts at any stage of a proceeding, and that an unobjected-to jury instruction does not warrant reversal unless it constitutes plain error.
• United States v. Giorgio Penco
  612 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of cocaine from a co-defendant's apartment on the conspiracy count, but had automatic standing on the possession count. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to the Fourth Amendment
• United States v. Mearns
  599 F.2d 1296· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the special parole term cannot be imposed for a conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846, as the statute only specifies imprisonment or fine as punishment.
• United States v. Rodarte
  596 F.2d 141· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of evidence of a prior foreign conviction
• United States v. Elvia Escamilla Moreno
  579 F.2d 371· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search was valid because the Sarita checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border, and the driver had sufficient dominion and control to possess the marijuana.
• United States v. Erasmo Olivarez Flores
  564 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 18×
  Evidence of flight alone is insufficient to support a conviction for knowingly possessing marijuana with intent to distribute when the defendant was a passenger and there is no other evidence of knowledge.
• United States v. Giles
  536 F.2d 136· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the telex message did not provide sufficient probable cause to believe illegal drugs were in the suitcase, and therefore the evidence was seized in violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Works
  526 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony regarding other drugs, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt for the substantive offenses and the application of the concurrent sentence doctri
• United States v. Bokine
  523 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the untimely motion to suppress and that any communication with the jury, even if error, was harmless.
• United States v. Hill
  508 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Montelongo
  507 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motions to quash the jury panel without allowing inquiry into prior jury service in narcotics cases and in consolidating cases without proper severance.
• United States v. McQUILLAN
  507 F.2d 30· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that returning undocumented aliens to Mexico did not violate defendants' due process or compulsory process rights when the aliens were not witnesses to the crime and could not have provided material testimony.
• United States v. Upthegrove
  504 F.2d 682· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the automobile, and that the conviction for simple possession merged with the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Adcock
  487 F.2d 637· 6th Cir.· 1973-11-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence supported only a single conspiracy, thus defendants could not be sentenced on both conspiracy counts. However, evidence was sufficient to convict on other counts and sentencing was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Roell
  487 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the pretrial non-disclosure of an informant's identity, nor by restrictions on cross-examination and argument, and that their convictions were otherwise valid.
• United States v. Simpson
  481 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the imposition of a special parole term under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or the Eighth Amendment, and that challenges to the specific conditions or supervision of parole are not ripe for adjudication before
• United States v. Nickens
  955 F.2d 112· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on juror English proficiency claims raised post-verdict, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, while improper, did not constitute plain error given the context of defense coun
• United States v. Welch
  945 F.2d 1378· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's proffered expert testimony regarding tape alteration and in admitting the government's authenticated tape recording, and that sentencing enhancements were pro
• United States v. Dewitt
  946 F.2d 1497· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding the voluntariness and scope of the defendant's consent to search were not clearly erroneous, and the defendant waived the argument of unlawful detention by failing to raise it below.
• United States v. Rivera-Feliciano
  930 F.2d 951· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the second prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the offenses charged required proof of different facts and the government did not need to prove conduct for which the defendant had already been prosecuted.
• United States v. Gomez
  905 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 17×
  A defendant can be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence for a specific drug offense, such as cocaine, even if they did not know the exact type of drug involved, as long as they knew they were transporting a controlled substance.
• United States v. O.Z. Howard
  895 F.2d 722· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that any error in admitting a hearsay receipt was harmless.
• United States v. Anderson
  859 F.2d 1171· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found during the vehicle search, nor in refusing to suppress roadside statements, and that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to
• United States v. Peddle
  821 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 17×
  The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Coates beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gotchis
  803 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an agent's rough notes of an informant's tip are not 'statements' under Rule 26.2, routine biographical questions are permissible post-Miranda silence, and a prosecutor's comments on the lack of evidence for a defense theory do not impermissibly shift the burd
• United States v. Noble Adjin Lartey
  716 F.2d 955· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the use of forthwith grand jury subpoenas was justified by exigent circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the expert's review of financial records did not violate grand jury secrecy rules. However, the court reversed the conviction on
• United States v. Rodriguez
  588 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant failed to establish a cognizable class for his jury selection challenge and that his statutory claim regarding jury wheel refilling was procedurally deficient. The court also found the jury instruction on specific inte