Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Hernandez
  862 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The removal of a sole holdout juror for acquittal on the fourth day of deliberations, particularly when the grounds for removal are unclear and the judge's remarks may have prejudiced the remaining jurors, constitutes reversible error.
• United States v. Waldo B. Schoenheit
  856 F.2d 74· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41's nighttime search requirements does not automatically require suppression of evidence, and the prejudicial error rule applies unless the violation was intentional or the search would not have occurred otherwise.
• United States v. Migueles
  856 F.2d 117· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Leavis
  853 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence pertaining to the 1985 importation of cocaine, nor in admitting the defendant's prior felony conviction, nor in admitting wiretap evidence.
• United States v. Quintero
  848 F.2d 154· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the sealed boxes was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because the contents were previously lawfully discovered and there was no substantial likelihood the contents had been changed. The evidence was also sufficient to support th
• United States v. Kelley
  849 F.2d 999· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single conspiracy and that the admission of evidence concerning other deals was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Garcia
  848 F.2d 58· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile characteristics, suspicious behavior, and a large quantity of cocaine found.
• United States v. Mirahmad Feroz
  848 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on 'conscious avoidance' was incomplete, it did not constitute plain error, and therefore the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Pillow
  842 F.2d 1001· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and affirmed the conviction, finding the stop, seizure, and search warrant were lawful.
• United States v. Gildardo F. Acevedo
  842 F.2d 502· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay, denying a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, refusing to define 'constructive distribution,' or in its use of the verdict sheet.
• United States v. Alain Asland Perez
  824 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted under the James standard.
• United States v. Chavez
  812 F.2d 1295· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the garage, the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the subsequent pat-down search were all lawful, supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Jackson
  807 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 8×
  The court is bound by precedent to find the Sierra Blanca checkpoint constitutional as a functional equivalent of a border, despite reservations about the precedent's reasoning.
• United States v. Ifeanyi Monu
  782 F.2d 1209· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that expert testimony regarding heroin purity and the use of a scale as a tool of the trade was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction under the Travel Act.
• United States v. Gallo
  782 F.2d 1191· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by failing to adequately instruct the jury on the elements of the Travel Act, specifically the definition of 'unlawful activity' as a 'business enterprise'.
• United States v. Bedros Kalaydjian
  784 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that cross-examination of government witnesses regarding their reasons for choosing to affirm rather than swear on the Koran was properly precluded by Federal Rule of Evidence 610, as such inquiry would delve into religious beliefs and potentially prejudice the jur
• United States v. Kalish
  780 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prior acquittal on conspiracy charges does not necessarily preclude a subsequent conviction for substantive offenses or aiding and abetting, especially when the jury's verdict in the prior trial did not necessarily resolve the specific facts at issue in the
• United States v. Sihadej Chindawongse
  771 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that tape-recorded co-conspirator statements admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) do not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Caminos
  770 F.2d 361· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Pittsburgh International Airport can be considered the functional equivalent of a border for Fourth Amendment purposes when a package arrives from a foreign point of departure and remains under customs bond until searched at its final destination. The court al
• United States v. Ayala
  769 F.2d 98· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed Gonzalez's conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, finding sufficient evidence of substantial income, but upheld the setting aside of Ayala's conviction due to insufficient proof of substantial income.
• United States v. Moreno
  758 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 8×
  Evidence obtained after an illegal entry but pursuant to a subsequently obtained valid warrant is admissible if the warrant was not based on information from the illegal entry.
• United States v. Jamiel Alexander Chagra
  754 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses was proper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, nor in admitting electronically intercepted conversations.
• United States v. Sarmiento
  750 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 8×
  Customs officers do not have statutory authority to board vessels on the high seas, as this authority is limited to customs waters.
• United States v. Goldman
  750 F.2d 1221· 4th Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions should be affirmed as the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, in its venue instructions, or in finding no fatal variance between the indictment and proof, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Johnnie Mack Morgan (82-5441) & George Brooks
  744 F.2d 1215· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 8×
  The convictions are affirmed based on Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Large
  729 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and probable cause to seize the appellant's suitcase, and that the admission of cash evidence was proper.
• United States v. Sarmiento-Perez
  724 F.2d 898· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to connect the defendant to the cocaine, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
• United States v. Villegas-Rojas
  715 F.2d 564· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Hensel
  711 F.2d 1000· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statutes under which appellants were convicted were constitutional and that there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions. Claims regarding evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were also found to be without merit.
• United States v. Duran
  687 F.2d 348· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Johnston
  685 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant received a fair trial and affirmed his conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury bias, pretrial motions, evidence suppression, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, or grand jury
• United States v. Taylor
  683 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1982-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the yacht was permissible due to abandonment and that the admission of photographs developed from negatives was not a Fourth Amendment violation.
• United States v. Brooks
  670 F.2d 625· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were admissible because they were not made in the context of a plea bargain and that evidence of marijuana possession was admissible as part of the same transaction or under Rule 404(b).
• United States v. Romo
  669 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of "guilt by association" testimony, concerning the prior convictions of the defendant's acquaintances, was highly prejudicial and reversible error, especially without a proper curative instruction.
• United States v. Seymour Joseph Cassel
  668 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court's refusal to ask certain proposed voir dire questions was unjustified, the overall voir dire was not so inadequate as to deny the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Attell
  655 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to poll the jury regarding prejudicial publicity and in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of 'agent' in the context of an entrapment defense.
• United States v. Willis
  647 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding his bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, requiring reversal of both convictions.
• United States v. Molina-Garcia
  634 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence searched, thus possessing standing to challenge the search's constitutionality.
• United States v. Powell
  632 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is appealable, but the denial of a motion to strike overt acts is not. An acquittal on a possession charge does not collaterally estop a conspiracy charge if the jury could have found guilt on the
• United States v. Brunk
  615 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the second indictment's count 3 does not violate double jeopardy, as it charges a separate offense from the first indictment.
• United States v. Villalon
  605 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the destruction of evidence, the legality of the search, the refusal of a jury instruction, and insufficiency of evidence did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Efren Cortes
  606 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to force the government to elect between charges of possession with intent to distribute and actual distribution when both arise from a single transaction and concurrent sentences are imposed.
• United States v. Lorin Hugh Smith
  601 F.2d 972· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction on count III.
• United States v. Smith
  595 F.2d 1176· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was permissible under the Fourth Amendment due to probable cause, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Killebrew
  594 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, hearsay evidence was admissible at the suppression hearing, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Sixto O'Calagan C. (Cerezo)
  580 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the district court had jurisdiction.
• United States v. Smith
  564 F.2d 244· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for drug conspiracy, distribution, possession, and carrying a firearm during a felony.
• United States v. Stricklin
  534 F.2d 1386· 10th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the pickup truck and U-Haul trailer were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
• United States v. Bates
  526 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was lawful as a border search conducted under reasonable suspicion, and thus the motion to suppress was properly denied.
• United States v. Padilla
  525 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the voir dire question regarding racial prejudice was adequate, the jury instructions were sufficient, and the evidence supported the convictions.