Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Poms
  484 F.2d 919· 4th Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the cocaine found in the defendant's bag was admissible evidence because its discovery was the result of a valid protective search for weapons under Terry v. Ohio, and the denial of the motion to disclose the informant's identity was proper as the informant wa
• United States v. Laneesha Colston
  4 F.4th 1179· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government need only prove knowledge that a controlled substance was involved, not knowledge of the specific substance, to convict under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846.
• Sampson v. State
  863 So. 2d 404· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-12-31 ·cited 16×
  Michael Sampson appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to distribute after police found drugs in a fanny pack on a borrowed bicycle. The court reversed the conviction for cocaine possession with intent to sell, finding insufficient evidence of
• United States v. Easley
  977 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a 'missing witness' instruction and in applying a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury.
• United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu
  962 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Amparo
  961 F.2d 288· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-08 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentencing court's discretionary decisions regarding downward departures were not appealable.
• Collins v. State
  596 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-04-08 ·cited 16×
  Collins appealed her sentences for violating community control and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing the combined sentences exceeded the maximum permitted under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court agreed, finding that the 3.5 years incarceration followe
• United States v. Padilla
  961 F.2d 322· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Torres's aiding and abetting conviction and that the district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines to Padilla's sentence.
• United States v. Perez
  959 F.2d 164· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements without required findings on the record constitutes reversible error. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct
• United States v. Koller
  956 F.2d 1408· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the money laundering conviction, Koller's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the government's conduct did not constitute outrageous conduct. Sentencing was affirmed.
• United States v. Moore
  956 F.2d 843· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly suppressed evidence seized under a no-knock warrant because the supporting affidavit lacked particularized facts demonstrating exigent circumstances, rendering the officers' reliance on the warrant objectively unreasonable.
• United States v. McKNIGHT
  953 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the refusal of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was proper, the search warrant was valid under the good-faith exception, and the sentence was correctly calculated.
• United States v. Levy
  955 F.2d 1098· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior attempted drug transaction under Rule 404(b), in denying the defendant's motion to suppress statements made during a non-custodial interrogation, and in imposing an enhanced sentence.
• United States v. Salatil Pruneda-Gonzalez
  953 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marihuana, and that the defense of entrapment was not established as a matter of law.
• United States v. Pineda-Ortuno
  952 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while convictions for drug and firearm offenses are affirmed, the sentences for the firearms counts must be vacated and remanded because multiple firearms counts cannot be based on a single drug trafficking offense.
• United States v. Apolonia Galvan
  949 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A) and (C) were not multiplicious, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the sentencing was based on reliable information.
• United States v. Jairo Hernan PEÑA
  949 F.2d 751· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the district court did not err in admitting agent's notes or in giving a deliberate ignorance jury instruction.
• United States v. Cook
  949 F.2d 289· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's due process and equal protection rights were not violated by federal prosecution, the search warrant was valid, co-defendant testimony was admissible, jury instructions were adequate, and the sentence was properly calculated.
• United States v. Blake
  941 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment's joinder of offenses was proper, certain extrinsic evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez
  942 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
• United States v. de Francisco-Lopez
  939 F.2d 1405· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in its definition and application of the deliberate ignorance standard, asserting that the evidence supported the jury instruction.
• United States v. Egbert Richardson
  939 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's sentence may be based on reasonably foreseeable conduct of co-conspirators, but not on negotiated drug amounts if the defendant was not reasonably capable of producing them. A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on a gove
• United States v. COX
  934 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
• United States v. Rivera-Lopez
  928 F.2d 372· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 16×
  A jury's acquittal on a specific count does not prevent a sentencing court from considering the acquitted conduct if it is established by reliable evidence and relevant to the offense of conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Poole
  929 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of prior drug sale testimony under Rule 404(b) was proper, the jury instructions were not misleading, and the sentencing based on the total drug quantity was appropriate.
• United States v. English
  925 F.2d 154· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that jury instructions regarding unanimity on the identities of supervised persons were not required. However, conspiracy convictions must be vacated
• United States v. Meirovitz
  918 F.2d 1376· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's Miranda waiver, confession, and consent to search were voluntary, the admission of weapons was proper, the evidence was sufficient to prove predisposition, and the life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate.
• United States v. Harmon
  918 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a cooperating witness and evidence of prior drug transportation, as the jury was properly instructed to assess credibility and the probative value outweighed prejudice.
• United States v. Radka
  904 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conclusion of exigent circumstances was supported by the record, warranting affirmance.
• United States v. Williams
  900 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence of prior similar mailings is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge and intent, provided it passes the Beechum test and is accompanied by proper jury instructions.
• United States v. Esric Ricardo Lugg
  892 F.2d 101· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Johnson
  889 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the sentences imposed were improper because the district court failed to properly apply the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987 to offenses committed after its effective date.
• United States v. Anthony Temple
  890 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possession with intent to distribute, and that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in jury selection under Batson.
• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• United States v. Fuentes
  877 F.2d 895· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the precise quantity of marijuana is not an element of the substantive offense under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, and venue is proper in the district where defendants were brought after arrest at sea.
• United States v. Duprey
  895 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while convictions are affirmed, sentences must be vacated and remanded for resentencing due to improper application of amended statutory provisions regarding supervised release.
• United States v. Zayas
  876 F.2d 1057· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury empanelment was not a pretext to violate the Speedy Trial Act, any error regarding the Fifth Amendment was harmless, and the sentencing was correct.
• United States v. Benson
  846 F.2d 1338· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the government deliberately delayed the indictment to gain a tactical advantage, and therefore, the pre-indictment delay did not violate his due process rights.
• United States v. Bradley
  820 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that a defendant cannot claim entrapment based solely on the actions of third parties unless the government agent instructed the intermediary to pressure the defendant.
• United States v. Restrepo-Rua
  815 F.2d 1327· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Wiseman
  814 F.2d 826· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the heroin, admitting the co-conspirator's statements, or admitting the introduction as an adoptive admission, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict.
• United States v. Ira Lee Watkins
  811 F.2d 1408· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and correctly determined that a prosecutorial remark did not impermissibly prejudice a defendant's right not to testify.
• United States v. Gorecki
  813 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Gomez
  810 F.2d 947· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception was proper, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding alleged prior misconduct or in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Gaviria
  805 F.2d 1108· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a customs search at the final destination airport, even after an initial inspection at an earlier port of entry, is a valid border search if the goods remain under customs bond and are untampered. The court also held that the arrest of Gaviria was supported by
• United States v. van Buren
  804 F.2d 888· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a guilty plea must be vacated if the district court fails to establish a factual basis for the plea and fails to determine that the defendant understood the complex nature of the charges.
• United States v. Serna
  799 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidentiary rulings were proper and sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Baswell
  792 F.2d 755· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 16×
  A caretaker with implied authority from the owner can validly consent to a search of a vacation house, and initial statements made by a suspect before being considered in custody are admissible without Miranda warnings.
• United States v. Ryan Krebs (83-1098)
  788 F.2d 1166· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant Krebs knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and that the defendant Levine failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the denial of his severance motion to warrant reversal.
• United States v. FOX
  788 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a five-and-a-half-month adjournment between jury selection and the commencement of trial, without stated justification, violated the Speedy Trial Act.