Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Colindres-Davila
  804 F.2d 623· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, but remanded for correction of the judgment.
• United States v. Diaz
  797 F.2d 99· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appearance of justice was not satisfied due to the district judge's communications with the United States Attorney and a Senator regarding the defendant's case, requiring reassignment for resentencing.
• United States v. Montoya
  782 F.2d 1554· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 10×
  Possession of cocaine in the United States, even with intent to distribute it in a foreign country, is sufficient to establish guilt under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
• United States v. Womochil
  778 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence obtained through wiretaps and oral communications, nor in admitting certain hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Wolfe
  766 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions, as the evidence was sufficient, the co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the prior conviction evidence was properly handled.
• United States v. Glass
  741 F.2d 83· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the investigatory stop of the defendant was invalid because law enforcement officers lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the evidence discovered as a result of the stop must be suppressed.
• United States v. Morales
  737 F.2d 761· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The government waived its right to challenge the defendant's standing to contest the search of a motel room due to inconsistent arguments made throughout the litigation.
• United States v. Armstrong
  722 F.2d 681· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the initial encounter at the West Palm Beach airport was a voluntary contact, not a Fourth Amendment seizure, and the subsequent detention of the luggage in Atlanta was supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Gordon
  722 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the investigatory stop of the motor home was lawful based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent odor of marijuana provided probable cause for a warrantless search.
• United States v. Harris
  720 F.2d 1259· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's stern admonishment of defense counsel, while improper, did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel, and the denial of the motion to exclude prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• Anderson v. State
  447 So. 2d 236· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-07-18 ·cited 10×
  Appellants could have been convicted and sentenced for both manufacture and possession of a controlled substance without violating double jeopardy, as possession is not a necessarily included offense of manufacture.
• United States v. Homero Sepulveda
  710 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that evidence of a heroin transaction was admissible in a cocaine conspiracy trial because it was inextricably intertwined and not extrinsic evidence, and any prejudice was cured by a limiting instruction.
• United States v. Karo
  710 F.2d 1433· 10th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that warrantless installation and monitoring of a beeper inside private residences or storage lockers violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from a tainted search warrant must be suppressed.
• United States v. Veal
  703 F.2d 1224· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in providing a cautionary instruction regarding a co-defendant's prior conviction, in failing to inform the jury of a contempt warning given to a witness, in admitting statements made after delivery, or in refusing a proposed jury i
• United States v. Levy
  703 F.2d 791· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Moreno
  701 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the "knock and notice" requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 applied to the iron gate, and the officers' forced entry without compliance required suppression of the seized evidence.
• United States v. Pomerantz
  683 F.2d 352· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 10×
  The admission of testimony regarding the defendant possessing a gun during the commission of the crime was not reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Boles
  684 F.2d 534· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the eight-month delay between arrest and indictment did not violate appellants' speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act, and individual contentions were without merit.
• United States v. MacDONALD
  670 F.2d 910· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the investigatory stop, baggage detention for a sniff-search, and seizure of items incident to arrest were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and thus, the evidence was admissible.
• United States v. Young
  655 F.2d 624· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to irrelevant cross-examination, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and that there was no plain error in failing to instruct on simple possession.
• United States v. Hammond
  642 F.2d 248· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a prosecutor's misstatement of law regarding motive versus intent, while misleading, was not prejudicial error when the court subsequently provided correct jury instructions and the defense attorney did not object.
• United States v. Mullins
  638 F.2d 1151· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the heroin sample into evidence, as the chain of custody issues raised did not suggest misidentification.
• United States v. Bush
  623 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on information from bowling alley employees and their own observations, and that the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag he voluntarily discarded.
• United States v. Williams
  613 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on entrapment, evidence exclusion, search and seizure standing, or due process regarding expert analysis.
• United States v. Wise
  603 F.2d 1101· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant cannot assert a violation of a witness's Fifth Amendment privilege, and that considering a defendant's perjury at a co-defendant's trial during sentencing for the original offense does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Obie Goodlow, Jr.
  597 F.2d 159· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' challenges to the jury array on statutory and constitutional grounds were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Dayton
  592 F.2d 253· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Madonna
  582 F.2d 704· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 10×
  Consecutive sentences for conspiracy and substantive narcotics offenses are permissible as they are distinct crimes.
• United States v. Aurelio Avila-MacIas and Ernesto Laranaga
  577 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion regarding a juror's passing by a crime scene, the admission of co-conspirator statements, the exclusion of a surrebuttal witness, the informant's fee arrangement, or the order of jury instructions.
• United States v. Martin
  574 F.2d 1359· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that prior convictions in a foreign nation do not bar a subsequent prosecution by the United States for the same conduct under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause or the Department of Justice's Petite Policy.
• United States v. Boney
  572 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant waived any objection to venue by failing to raise it before or during trial, and that sufficient evidence of constructive possession existed to support the conviction. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony
• United States v. Harold
  531 F.2d 704· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that mere presence or association with contraband is insufficient to prove constructive possession or aiding and abetting distribution. Additional evidence of dominion or control is required.
• United States v. Young
  535 F.2d 484· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that probable cause existed to stop the vehicles and seize the marijuana, and the destruction of the evidence did not deny appellants a fair trial.
• United States v. Aniceto Canales, Jr.
  527 F.2d 440· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the border patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and the subsequent search was proper because marijuana was in plain view.
• United States v. BEY
  526 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance, refusing to suppress evidence, or admitting testimony, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Ramirez
  524 F.2d 283· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Waddell
  507 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were erroneous because they failed to inform the jury that a paid government informer, acting as a surrogate, could also perpetrate entrapment.
• United States v. Eaton
  501 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 10×
  A trial court cannot order a new trial sua sponte; such an order is a nullity, leaving the original proceedings pending.
• United States v. Wade
  502 F.2d 144· 6th Cir.· 1974-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the defense counsel was misled by a court law clerk regarding jury instructions on lesser included offenses.
• United States v. Jones
  492 F.2d 239· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the accumulation of trial incidents, particularly the government's failure to make reasonable efforts to produce a crucial informant witness, significantly hampered the defense and denied the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Bagsby
  489 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a polygraph examination and state parole status, as appellants were afforded sufficient opportunity to explore witness motives.
• United States v. Jackson Willie Gant
  487 F.2d 30· 10th Cir.· 1973-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for severance or mistrial, nor in its evidentiary rulings, as the co-defendant's testimony, while potentially prejudicial, was relevant and the defendant's own defense of entrapment opened the door
• United States v. Epperson
  485 F.2d 514· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Epperson and Easley were active participants in the crime, not merely present.
• United States v. Campos
  471 F.2d 296· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a vehicle stop at a permanent immigration checkpoint is valid without suspicion, and the odor of marihuana provides probable cause for a search.
• United States v. Moler
  460 F.2d 1273· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Harding
  104 F.4th 1291· 11th Cir.· 2024-06-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of drug trafficking found years after the charged conspiracy as intrinsic evidence, and that the failure to provide a limiting instruction for evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) was also an abuse
• United States v. Barnett
  989 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentencing, finding that the drug quantity was reasonably estimated, the drug purity issue was waived, consent to search was voluntary, and the search warrant affidavit established probable cause even without disputed information.
• United States v. Otto Pace
  981 F.2d 1123· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the use of ambiguous drug terms in the indictment and general verdict forms, combined with sentencing discrepancies, constituted plain error requiring resentencing or new trial for some counts, but affirmed one conviction outright.
• United States v. Lawson
  947 F.2d 849· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court's finding of an aggravating role was not clearly erroneous and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Guerrero
  935 F.2d 189· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute, and that the jury instructions on aiding and abetting and deliberate ignorance did not constitute plain e