Possession With Intent To Distribute

2,534 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,907 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Mather
  465 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-02 ·cited 63×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
• United States v. Buggs
  904 F.2d 1070· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove firearm possession and interstate commerce, and that negotiated drug quantities were properly included in sentencing calculations.
• United States v. Mejia-Lozano
  829 F.2d 268· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for importing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute was supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Williams-Hendricks
  805 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, as it relied on attenuated inferences.
• United States v. Mazza
  792 F.2d 1210· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 62×
  The admission of DEA agents' testimony repeating an informer's out-of-court statements was erroneous hearsay, but the error was harmless because other properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction.
• United States v. Borys
  766 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the initial encounter was consensual, the subsequent investigative detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the detention of his luggage was within constitutional limits.
• United States v. de Bright
  742 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that she cannot be found guilty of conspiracy if she conspired only with a government agent, and failure to provide such an instruction is reversible error.
• United States v. Raper
  676 F.2d 841· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the conviction of appellant Childs and Raper for unlawful possession of heroin with intent to distribute, finding sufficient evidence for constructive possession.
• United States v. Tavelman
  650 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, searches were lawful, and codefendants' statements were admissible. However, special parole terms imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 846 were improper.
• United States v. Ayala
  643 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity must yield when the informant's testimony is essential to a fair determination of the accused's defense, particularly when the informant was a participant in the criminal activity and their testimo
• United States v. Miranda
  593 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a prosecutor's reference in closing argument to a co-conspirator's conviction on less evidence than that presented against the defendant deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Thomas
  586 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 62×·via Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and using a communication facility, and that the voice identification testimony was proper.
• United States v. Evasio Hernandez
  574 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the admission of incriminating statements obtained in violation of the defendant's Miranda rights, specifically the right to cut off questioning, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• United States v. Benveniste
  564 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the exclusion of the defense investigator's testimony regarding statements made by a third party (Meek) was reversible error, as it deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to present his entrapment defense.
• United States v. Calhoun
  510 F.2d 861· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-24 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, in its voir dire, or in excluding defense witnesses, and that the speedy trial claim was without merit. However, it found that Counts V and VI should have been consolidated.
• United States v. Hart
  506 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-15 ·cited 62×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez does not alter the precedential effect of circuit case law upholding searches at permanent border patrol checkpoints.
• United States v. Parrado
  911 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, the warrantless search of the van was permissible under the automobile exception, and the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence.
• United States v. Cardenas
  895 F.2d 1338· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 61×
  The court held that testimony regarding prior drug use and distribution was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to contradict the defendant's material testimony.
• United States v. Alfreda Barnes
  890 F.2d 545· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 61×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine Base
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of constructive possession of cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a felon, and that the term 'cocaine base' was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the jury instructions on reasonable doubt
• United States v. Hoffman
  832 F.2d 1299· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses was not violated because the government's alleged interference was not causally linked to the witness's absence, and the wiretap evidence was lawfully obtained.
• United States v. Raimundo Crespo de Llano
  830 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
• United States v. Montoya
  827 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the time spent preparing for or engaging in other proceedings, including plea bargaining, is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits, and that the seventy-day clock for trial commencement begins upon appearance in the charging district, not merely u
• United States v. Esle
  743 F.2d 1465· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because they did not prove the percentage of Hispanics eligible for jury service in the general population.
• United States v. Jones
  676 F.2d 327· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-28 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day limit for indictment applies only when an arrest is accompanied by a filed complaint or charges, not a mere arrest followed by release without charges.
• United States v. Marin
  669 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-18 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the stop of the defendants' car was supported by probable cause, the search of the car and the bag was lawful due to consent and lack of privacy expectation, and the redacted statement did not violate confrontation rights.
• United States v. Hawkins
  658 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 61×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the district court's abbreviated voir dire was insufficient to ensure impartiality given extensive pretrial publicity, requiring reversal for some appellants. It also held that consecutive sentences for RICO and predicate offenses are permissible.
• United States v. Moreno
  536 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 61×
  The court held that while the procedure for determining a Fifth Amendment privilege claim in camera is not definitively decided, the trial court erred by sustaining the privilege too broadly, excluding potentially material testimony without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Damitz
  495 F.2d 50· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 61×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  A search warrant is valid if the remaining true portions of the affidavit, after excising false statements, establish probable cause, especially when the affiant is a non-government informant and the government agents relied in good faith.
• United States v. Joyner
  924 F.2d 454· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 60×·via Possession Of Narcotics With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the 'relevant conduct' determination was proper, but a downward departure based solely on disparity among co-defendants' sentences was impermissible. The court affirmed Joyner's appeal and remanded for resentencing on the Government's cross-appeal.
• United States v. Garrett
  903 F.2d 1105· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of possession and intent to distribute, consecutive sentences for the firearm offenses were permissible under double jeopardy, and the district court did not err in denying the motio
• United States v. Ira Silverman
  889 F.2d 1531· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 60×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that uncharged conduct, if sufficiently reliable and part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, can be considered for sentencing purposes under the Guidelines, even if it occurred prior to the Guidelines' effective date or was
• United States v. Erves
  880 F.2d 376· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 60×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court affirmed the defendants' sentences, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and were properly applied in these cases.
• United States v. Vizcaino
  870 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and its promulgated Guidelines do not unconstitutionally deny due process by restricting judicial discretion or vesting excessive authority in the prosecutorial branch.
• United States v. Amel F. Lueth
  807 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge's conduct, or the refusal to sever tax charges from drug charges.
• United States v. Herrera
  757 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin (Counts One and Two), but reversed the conviction for possession of heroin found in a footlocker (Count Four) due to insufficient evidence of con
• United States v. Alvarez
  735 F.2d 461· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a single conspiracy charge with multiple objectives is not duplicitous, and a conviction can stand if evidence proves at least one objective. However, enhanced sentences require specific allegations in the indictment regarding the quantity or type of substance
• United States v. Quejada-Zurique
  708 F.2d 857· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the sentence disparity did not violate due process.
• United States v. Thompson
  700 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 60×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was not adequately supported by findings of fact regarding exigent circumstances, and that the possibility of the government creating the exigent circumstances required further factual determination.
• United States v. Allen
  675 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 60×
  The court held that extensive surveillance, including helicopter overflights and use of vision-enhancing devices, did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Brandon
  633 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 60×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the informant's consent to wiretaps was voluntary and that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of conspiracy, thus reversing an acquittal. The court also held that entrapment was not a jury question as the defendant was predisposed.
• United States v. Ludwig
  508 F.2d 140· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-27 ·cited 60×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper vouching for the credibility of the police constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal, and that the search warrant was lawful.
• United States v. Maslanka
  501 F.2d 208· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for importation of marijuana, but sufficient for possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Warrantless seizure of clothing incident to arrest was permissible.
• United States v. Smaldone
  484 F.2d 311· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-14 ·cited 60×·via Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the production of the prosecutor's interview notes, refusing to compel disclosure of an informant's address, or in its jury instructions, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Amado Lopez and Thomas Llerena
  459 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-11 ·cited 60×
  Congress acted within its Commerce Clause power by enacting sections of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, making it a federal crime to engage in controlled substance activities without requiring proof of an effect on interstate commerce.
• Harris v. State
  647 So. 2d 206· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-07-29 ·cited 59×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Michael Kevin Harris appealed his conviction for drug possession with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest without violence. The court reversed all convictions, finding insufficient evidence of constructive possession and that the officer lacked
• United States v. Pierce
  893 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when private parties, acting on their own initiative and policy, open a suspicious package, and subsequent government searches do not exceed the scope of the private search. The court also held that a comp
• United States v. Ayarza
  874 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile factors, provided reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant's luggage for a canine sniff, and that the Sentencing Reform Act provisions requiring a government motion for downward adjustment a
• United States v. Gaetano Phillip Puglisi
  723 F.2d 779· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 59×
• United States v. Spetz
  721 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the dog sniffs were lawful, the warrant for the van pak was valid despite minor misstatements in the affidavit, the protective sweep of the residence was unlawful, but the subsequent search warrant for the residence was valid due to independent probable cause.
• United States v. Harbin
  601 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-27 ·cited 59×
  The court held that most convictions were valid, but reversed convictions for O'Quinn and Cleckler on certain counts due to insufficient evidence. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on wiretap legality, prosecutorial comments, discovery, and admission of evidence.