Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Velasquez
  890 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act requires dismissal of only the offenses charged in the original complaint if the indictment is untimely, and that the defendant's role in the offense was not minimal enough for a sentencing reduction.
• United States v. Campino
  890 F.2d 588· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a Franks hearing, admitting expert testimony, or in finding sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Randall
  887 F.2d 1262· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence seized without a warrant, denying motions for mistrial, or in its sentencing decisions.
• United States v. Edwardo-Franco
  885 F.2d 1002· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's conduct, including disparaging remarks about nationality and improper evidentiary rulings, created an appearance of bias, warranting a new trial for some defendants and dismissal of charges for another due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Evans
  883 F.2d 496· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appointment book and the officer's testimony, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Hernandez
  873 F.2d 516· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while proceeding with jury selection in the defendant's absence was initially permissible, the district court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the defendant's explanation for his absence upon his return, requiring a remand for further fact
• United States v. Armelio De La Cruz
  870 F.2d 1192· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the sentencing judge's remarks, while approaching the zone of unconstitutionality, were permissible within the context of general deterrence and balanced with individual characteristics, and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the attorney's c
• United States v. Rodriquez-Cardenas
  866 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that non-black defendants lack standing to raise a Batson challenge regarding the exclusion of black jurors, and that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement does not apply to petit juries. The court also affirmed the admission of two tape-recorded con
• United States v. Hasna Sayed Dahdah
  864 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court erred in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's redirect examination, this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Rodrequez
  859 F.2d 1321· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's use of peremptory strikes was not discriminatory, joinder was proper, photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive, informant identities were not required to be disclosed, and other trial rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Santillanes
  848 F.2d 1103· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent searches violated the appellant's Fourth Amendment rights because they were not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
• United States v. Battle
  859 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that any error in admitting certain testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Jennings
  842 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a RICO conviction requires at least two predicate acts, and if only one act is proven, the conviction must be reversed. However, other convictions not dependent on the RICO count are affirmed.
• United States v. Miller
  835 F.2d 187· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent searches were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the conviction stands.
• United States v. Santisteban
  833 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the use of a paid informant whose compensation was not contingent on conviction does not violate due process, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance or a new trial.
• United States v. Duff
  831 F.2d 176· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 12×
  A probation officer has the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3655 to order a probationer to submit to drug testing, even if not explicitly imposed by the court, as long as it is consistent with court-imposed conditions and necessary for the officer's duties.
• Cauchon v. United States
  824 F.2d 908· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting the High Times magazine, or in finding sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of manufacturing a controlled substance.
• United States v. Rutherford
  824 F.2d 831· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the investigatory detention did not ripen into a de facto arrest without probable cause, the search warrant was based on probable cause, and the two counts for possession of marijuana and hashish were distinct offenses.
• United States v. Taylor
  821 F.2d 1377· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment with prejudice due to Speedy Trial Act violations.
• United States v. Hughes
  817 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in disqualifying counsel due to conflict of interest, denying motions for bills of particulars, denying severance, denying a motion for new trial, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants of conspiracy.
• United States v. Diaz
  814 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the warrantless second entry into the defendant's hotel room was lawful under the 'consent once removed' doctrine, and the seizure of evidence was permissible under the plain view doctrine.
• United States v. Miller
  822 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence obtained from the San Francisco search warrant was admissible because the warrant was based on independent probable cause, not tainted by the prior illegal search in Atlanta. The court also held that it was not bound by the government's prior conc
• United States v. Arbelaez
  812 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be punished for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive offenses if they are not distinct under the Blockburger test, and that separate sentences for aiding and abetting possession and distribution are impermissible when arising from
• United States v. Puig
  810 F.2d 1085· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the border search of the boat, including drilling into its hull, was constitutional, and the defendants' statements were voluntary and admissible. Any error regarding comments on post-Miranda silence was harmless.
• United States v. Udom Walitwarangkul
  808 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 12×
  Possession of a locked container with contraband, combined with other circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient for a jury to infer knowing possession.
• United States v. Allen
  804 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 12×
  A district court's acceptance of a guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis, potentially due to a misunderstanding of the defendant's admissions, requires remand for the court to make that determination.
• United States v. Miller
  799 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions based on outrageous government conduct and in admitting co-conspirator statements, and that the defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Takeo Matsushita
  794 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding probable cause for the initial seizure and the waiver of Miranda rights were ambiguous and required clarification, thus remanding those issues. Other claims were rejected.
• United States v. Breckenridge
  782 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence seized under a facially valid search warrant was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, even if the warrant was later found defective.
• United States v. Rivera
  778 F.2d 591· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing an entrapment instruction for Count III, requiring reversal of that conviction, but found no reversible error in other grounds raised by the defendant.
• United States v. Gomez
  770 F.2d 251· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area prior to trial to have standing to suppress evidence, and failure to do so waives the right to challenge admissibility at trial.
• United States v. Knobeloch
  746 F.2d 1366· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of cocaine from the defendant's motel room, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Moosey
  735 F.2d 633· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior cocaine deliveries was admissible for the conspiracy count with a limiting instruction, and that coconspirator statements were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
• United States v. Bisram Sugrim
  732 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 12×
  The dissent argues that the agents' actions constituted a seizure requiring probable cause, not a brief investigatory stop, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. $64
  722 F.2d 239· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful, the cash had a substantial connection to a Title 21 crime, the searches were constitutional, and the denial of the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Badolato
  710 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search of the suitcase was lawful, extrinsic evidence was admissible, post-arrest statements were admissible, Massiah did not apply, the verdict was not coerced, and a motion to interview jurors was properly denied.
• United States v. REY
  706 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's entrapment and outrageous conduct defenses failed, and his double jeopardy claim was without merit.
• United States v. Zirpolo
  704 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 12×
  A co-defendant who has pled guilty but not yet been sentenced may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and an exculpatory affidavit from such a co-defendant is inadmissible without corroborating circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
• United States v. Smith
  703 F.2d 627· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing sentences on both a greater and lesser included offense and in setting a minimum sentence that violated statutory limits.
• United States v. Porter
  701 F.2d 1158· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of discovery of classified surveillance equipment, the prosecutor's comments, or the warrantless arrest of Brickey, and affirmed the jury convictions.
• United States v. Buddy Branca
  677 F.2d 59· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal and a new trial.
• United States v. Watkins
  662 F.2d 1090· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the vessel, tractor-trailer, and van were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but reversed convictions for importation due to insufficient evidence of foreign origin.
• United States v. Smith
  649 F.2d 305· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial police contact with the appellant was not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent search was valid based on voluntary consent.
• United States v. Williams
  647 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress evidence was not error, as the appellant's consent to the search was voluntary and dissipated any taint from a potentially illegal stop.
• United States v. Driscoll
  632 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search of the airplane constituted a permissible extended border search based on radar tracking, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to personally examine the plane.
• United States v. Roberts
  644 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the police seizure at Gladstone was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that no principled distinction exists between the seizures at Independence and Gladstone.
• United States v. Rozen
  600 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's participation in the conspiracy or possession of marijuana, and therefore his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted.
• United States v. Gibbons
  602 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge abused discretion by not inquiring into prospective jurors' specific neighborhoods of residence and that admitting evidence of subsequent cocaine possession was erroneous and harmful.
• United States v. Ramos
  586 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the pre-indictment delay did not violate due process and the post-indictment delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Eulberg
  581 F.2d 1216· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the second search of the vehicle was a valid border search, and the evidence obtained was admissible.