Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Miles
  889 F.2d 382· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search of the apartment, and that limitations on cross-examination and a prosecutor's summation remark did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Castellanos
  882 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a sentencing judge cannot rely on evidence from a co-defendant's trial to determine drug quantity for sentencing purposes if the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
• United States v. Iglesias
  881 F.2d 1519· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress cash seized from a third party's residence, nor in denying the defendant's motion to compel production of internal government laboratory documents.
• United States v. Mora
  876 F.2d 76· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for importing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and that separate punishments for these offenses were permissible.
• United States v. Robinson
  870 F.2d 612· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 14×
  Possession of 25.2 grams of crack cocaine is sufficient to support a jury verdict for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Yaffa Levy
  865 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence to admit co-conspirator statements under the Ammar standard and that the use of false passports and identities was admissible. However, sentences for two defendants were vacated due to potential sentencing misunderstan
• United States v. Fernandez-Angulo
  863 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 14×
  Concurrent sentences for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute are permissible when the acts are not part of a single, immediate transaction. However, the case must be remanded for the district court to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(
• United States v. Rengifo
  858 F.2d 800· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless arrests and seizures were justified by exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hinds
  856 F.2d 438· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant's description of 'cocaine paraphernalia' was sufficiently particular and that the search of the premises did not exceed the warrant's scope. The admission of hearsay statements and testimony about a seized gun was also deemed proper.
• United States v. Rios
  856 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding the credibility of law enforcement officers were not clearly erroneous, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute coc
• United States v. Goggin
  853 F.2d 843· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for importation and conspiracy to import cocaine, and that any error in the jury instruction regarding importation did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Victoria
  837 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning of the appellants exceeded proper bounds by conveying skepticism about their testimony, thus depriving them of a fair trial.
• United States v. Fernandez
  829 F.2d 363· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a cooperation agreement, even if erroneous, was harmless error, and that the trial in absentia and admission of a firearm were proper.
• United States v. Brady
  819 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the public safety exception to Miranda applied, allowing officers to question the defendant about a weapon without warnings, and that the defendant's statement provided probable cause to search his vehicle.
• United States v. Ramos
  818 F.2d 1392· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the collective knowledge of the arresting officers was sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless arrest, and the district court's finding of probable cause was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Alvarez
  816 F.2d 813· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the literal application of Local Rule 204.2, limiting outside counsel to one pro hac vice appearance per year, is unconstitutional when it denies a criminal defendant their Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice without a showing that such choice would int
• United States v. Randle
  815 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant the opportunity to impeach a key witness, overruling objections to jury instructions, admitting co-conspirator statements, admitting evidence of weapons, or denying a motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Natel
  812 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug distribution, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a specific 'mere presence' jury instruction when the general charge adequately
• United States v. Ramirez-Amaya
  812 F.2d 813· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District and that the aggregation of fines was permissible because the offenses involved distinguishable harms and were not minor.
• United States v. Ferreira-Alameda
  815 F.2d 1251· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to co-defendants' testimony, and that he received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Chiattello
  804 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Mississippi and Indiana conspiracies were separate, thus not violating double jeopardy, and that the indictment sufficiently charged a continuing criminal enterprise.
• United States v. McBRIDE
  801 F.2d 1045· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 14×
  An anonymous tip, corroborated by police verification of vehicle details and location, can provide sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Adalberto Cervantes-Pacheco
  800 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 14×
  A contingent fee arrangement with a government informant, where payment is dependent on the informant's performance, including the quality of their testimony, violates due process and renders the testimony untrustworthy.
• United States v. Quinton M. Gornto, III
  792 F.2d 1028· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony barred by collateral estoppel was not harmless error, requiring reversal. However, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the retrial on conspiracy counts.
• United States v. Eddie Padin (85-5115)
  787 F.2d 1071· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant who had relinquished control of a house used as a drug distribution center and failed to take precautions to ensure confidentiality could not claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone conversation made from that house. The court also
• United States v. Fiallo-Jacome
  784 F.2d 1064· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that consecutive sentences for two counts of cocaine possession violated double jeopardy because the evidence showed a single, continuous possession. The court also vacated a defendant's sentence due to a procedural issue regarding the sentencing judge.
• United States v. Silverman
  771 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements implicating the defendant as a co-conspirator were properly admitted under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) and that a flight jury instruction was also proper.
• United States v. Hoelscher
  764 F.2d 491· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for conspiracy and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine, and that evidence from other counts was properly considered for identification.
• United States v. ENG
  753 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the marijuana patch and processing area were 'open fields' and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and that the legality of the search by state troopers should be judged by federal standards. The court also held that there was suf
• United States v. Diez
  736 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Offutt
  736 F.2d 1199· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, finding sufficient evidence for conviction, and denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• United States v. West
  731 F.2d 90· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 14×
  The detention of luggage for a narcotics dog sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the DEA agents acted with diligence and provided adequate information to the suspect.
• United States v. Hill
  730 F.2d 1163· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless search of Hill's suitcase was an unreasonable violation of the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of his conviction, but affirmed Frazier's conviction as the evidence against him was obtained lawfully and the suitcase evidence was not prejudi
• United States v. Nigro
  727 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless a specific exception applies, and the search of the DC-6 did not meet the criteria for a border search or exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Bounos
  730 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence supported findings of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawful firearm possession, and that the dismissal/reindictment procedure did not violate the Speedy Trial Act or constitutional speedy tri
• United States v. Braithwaite
  709 F.2d 1450· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellants' contentions lacked merit, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Mendez-Jimenez
  709 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit provided a 'clear indication' of internal body smuggling, justifying the magistrate's order for an x-ray search.
• United States v. Ward
  703 F.2d 1058· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the affidavit established probable cause for the search warrant, and the use of a night scope did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the evidence against Rose was insufficient for her convictions.
• United States v. Rollins
  699 F.2d 530· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the airplane was permissible under the automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest, and that probable cause existed to arrest the appellants.
• United States v. Jensen
  689 F.2d 1361· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent request for consent to search were not Fourth Amendment seizures because a reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave.
• United States v. Astorga-Torres
  682 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the entry into the appellants' cabin was lawful, justifying the seizure of evidence in plain view, and that prior drug sales and statements by a co-conspirator were admissible. However, the jury instruction on constructive possession for Count II was erroneous
• United States v. Willis
  646 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the petition for en banc rehearing, finding no inconsistency between its prior holdings in Willis and Alfrey.
• United States v. Worthington
  642 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the imposition of a special parole term for conspiracy is unauthorized, but affirmed convictions and sentences for drug possession and conspiracy in all other respects.
• United States v. Delos-Rios
  642 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and that the search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Orejuela
  639 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 14×
  A district court has discretion to deny reconsideration of constitutional claims previously litigated on direct appeal in a § 2255 motion, but an illegal sentence for conspiracy must be corrected.
• United States v. Sanchez
  634 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant, as the skipper of the vessel, had guilty intent beyond a reasonable doubt regarding his participation in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Shelnut
  625 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding and search of the vessel PAPPY was constitutional, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Nayar
  611 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding entrapment, the admission of oral statements, and the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy were without merit.
• United States v. Walton
  602 F.2d 1176· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting marijuana into evidence despite its partial disappearance, and that while denying defense access to a key witness in protective custody was error, it was harmless. The convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Dunbar
  590 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute Methaqualone was supported by overwhelming evidence and that none of the ten grounds for appeal warranted reversal.