Possession With Intent To Distribute

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

• United States v. Johnson
  862 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the imminent departure of the suspects created exigent circumstances, and the officers reasonably chose between searching the luggage or detaining the suspects.
• United States v. Brown
  856 F.2d 710· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and that the jury instructions were not erroneous.
• United States v. Barraza
  853 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that a defendant could be convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise even if his management activities involved bookkeeping, affirming all convictions.
• United States v. O'Brien
  853 F.2d 522· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of broken government promises and ineffective assistance of counsel were not supported by the record, and therefore his conviction and sentence were affirmed.
• United States v. Meadows
  839 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Coast Guard had probable cause to board the vessel based on the totality of the circumstances observed.
• Larson v. United States
  833 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of illegal seizure, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper presentence report information did not entitle him to habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Elias
  832 F.2d 24· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the appellant's statement was a spontaneous utterance, and remanded for factual findings on whether the appellant was in custody for Miranda purposes.
• United States v. Valenzuela-Verdigo
  815 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pre-trial detention order was valid and timely, affirming the district court's decision.
• United States v. McMURRY
  818 F.2d 24· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a second trial because the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the mistrial, and the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements or in its communication with the jury.
• United States v. Weber
  808 F.2d 1422· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps, vehicle searches, and residence searches, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Rome
  809 F.2d 665· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 2×
  Violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)(2) in obtaining a search warrant via telephone were not egregious enough to warrant suppression of the evidence, as they did not prejudice the defendant or demonstrate intentional disregard for the rule.
• United States v. German Severino
  800 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court has discretion to reject a guilty plea if it believes the defendant is not being truthful during the allocution, and that requiring peremptory challenges to be exercised publicly does not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Boschetti
  794 F.2d 416· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, as the alleged Brady violations and newly discovered evidence did not meet the materiality or diligence requirements for reversal.
• United States v. Traverse H. Cooke
  795 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, that convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting did not violate double jeopardy, that voice identifications were admissible, and that the trial court did no
• United States v. Sierra
  622 F. Supp. 1034· S.D. Fla.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 2×
  The district court affirmed the magistrate's pretrial detention orders for both defendants, finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure their appearance and the safety of the community.
• United States v. Tedeschi
  774 F.2d 511· 1st Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that at least sixteen days in May were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, meaning the defendants received a timely trial.
• United States v. Fernandez
  772 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the suitcase because the government failed to present admissible evidence of abandonment.
• United States v. Breit
  767 F.2d 1084· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain witness statements did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the request for the information was general, and the undisclosed evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
• United States v. Eladio Cipriano and Jean Julien
  765 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants were not unlawfully seized, the search of the travel bag was proper, and there was probable cause for Cipriano's arrest.
• United States v. Dyer
  752 F.2d 591· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting or excluding evidence, nor was the evidence insufficient to convict the defendants.
• United States v. Leocadio Figueroa
  750 F.2d 232· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding telephone conversations, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Garcia
  598 F. Supp. 533· S.D. Fla.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the extended search of the vessel was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause, and therefore granted the motion to suppress as to the captain who had standing.
• United States v. Perry
  740 F.2d 854· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Thames W. Baxter
  733 F.2d 1443· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the defendants' defenses, including entrapment and acting as informants, were properly rejected by the jury.
• United States v. Depee
  728 F.2d 1168· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an informant's tip, even with minor inaccuracies, when corroborated by independent investigation, can provide sufficient probable cause for a search warrant under the totality of the circumstances test.
• United States v. Hewitt
  724 F.2d 117· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's Fourth Amendment claims regarding seizure, search, and arrest were without merit, and the denial of the jury's request for a dictionary was frivolous.
• United States v. Walker
  720 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of distributing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Flick
  716 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motions to dismiss the indictment without a sufficient factual basis to evaluate the double jeopardy claim.
• United States v. DeBRIGHT
  710 F.2d 1404· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 2×
  When invoking the concurrent sentence doctrine, the court must either vacate the unreviewed conviction or reject the doctrine and review the conviction on the merits; affirming without review is improper.
• United States v. Ambrose
  707 F.2d 1209· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on entrapment were not erroneous, and that the defendants' other grounds for appeal, including speedy trial and "knock and enter" violations, were without merit.
• United States v. Rogers
  701 F.2d 871· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Gustke's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the government's conduct did not violate due process.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  702 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting a judgment of acquittal by substituting his own credibility determinations for those of the jury.
• United States v. Torgersen
  690 F.2d 682· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is admissible if the lawfully obtained information in the affidavit amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from any tainted information.
• United States v. Felix Bolla (Rufin)
  685 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants.
• United States v. Green
  678 F.2d 81· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions for a new trial, as the evidence supported the finding that consent to search was voluntary.
• United States v. Hoyt Albert Gaultney
  656 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the initial warrantless search was unconstitutional, tainting subsequent evidence and requiring vacation of convictions.
• United States v. Blair I. Benson
  640 F.2d 136· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that statements made in connection with a valid guilty plea are admissible in a subsequent trial, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the meaning of 'in furtherance of'.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez
  626 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellants' vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, including sensor data, knowledge of the area, and vehicle characteristics.
• United States v. Rush
  622 F.2d 1021· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 2×
  A special parole term cannot be imposed for a conviction of conspiracy to violate federal drug laws.
• United States v. Brinkley
  623 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause and that the seized evidence was admissible.
• United States v. Stark
  609 F.2d 271· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a formal written waiver of Miranda rights is not required, and a voluntary waiver can be inferred from the circumstances.
• United States v. Pruett
  569 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Bensabat
  568 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's withholding of certain information did not violate Brady v. Maryland or the Jencks Act, and thus did not deny the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Jordan
  570 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence of possession was sufficient and that the defendant's admission was voluntary and admissible, despite not signing a waiver form.
• United States v. Martinez
  565 F.2d 911· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 2×
  Statements made by a defendant after requesting counsel, if voluntary and not in response to interrogation, are admissible. Statements made to undercover agents before Miranda warnings are also admissible if the circumstances do not constitute custodial interrogation.
• United States v. McGARRITY
  559 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the failure to record a brief bench discussion was harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Muro
  537 F.2d 1339· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error.
• United States v. Bell
  510 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense impeachment evidence, admitting evidence of other crimes, or in the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• United States v. Dixon
  506 F.2d 899· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search of a vehicle by border agents at the permanent border checkpoint at Sierra Blanca, Texas, was constitutional.
• United States v. Bailey
  503 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction because he was predisposed to commit the crime, and that disclosure of the informant's identity prior to trial was not required under the circumstances.