56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of coconspirator statements, denial of severance motions, limitations on cross-examination, or sufficiency of evidence for the charges.
-
The court held that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to adopt the rule of per se admissibility for statements falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions is incorrect and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred by not conducting a proper inquiry into witnesses' Fifth Amendment claims and by denying a defendant's timely request for a subpoena for a material character witness.
-
The court held that while the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by recording post-indictment conversations, the proper remedy was to exclude the evidence from the trial of the indicted charges, not to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence
-
The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 955a is within Congress's power to apply extraterritorially to stateless vessels engaged in drug trafficking affecting the United States, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for possession with intent to distr
-
The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one firearm conviction and vacated others for resentencing due to jury instruction errors regarding continuing criminal enterprise.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of relevant conduct for GSR calculation was supported by evidence, but erred in departing downward based on defendant's cooperation without a government motion and on rehabilitation that was not extraordinary.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court affirmed the sentences of all four defendants, finding that the district courts properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, including upward departures, and that the right of allocution was not denied.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, rebuttal testimony was admissible, prior bad acts evidence was properly admitted, and the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was reasonable.
-
-
The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that the jury charge on conscious avoidance was proper, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not require a connection between a firearm and a drug offense for sentence enhancement, only possession during the offense, and that a special assessment statute was unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including possession of a key to a fortified drug house, was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Sentencing enhance
-
The court held that the prosecutor did not violate Brady or Giglio by failing to disclose information not in the government's possession or that was discoverable by the defense. It also held that one conviction for structuring transactions was improper, but others were affirmed,
-
The court held that venue was proper for possession with intent to distribute charges against appellants who aided and abetted the crime, and that certain conspiracy convictions merge with a continuing criminal enterprise conviction. The court also found that the investigation in
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
-
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search his vehicle was tainted by his unlawful seizure and detention, and therefore the evidence found must be suppressed.
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, finding no clear error in factual determinations or Guideline applications regarding obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility, and deeming the upward departure reasonable.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of the appellants for RICO, CCE, and related offenses, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts.
-
The court held that tape-recorded conversations were admissible as co-conspirator hearsay and affirmed RICO conspiracy convictions, reversing only tax evasion convictions for Larry and Suzette Jackson.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of informants, denying severance motions, or admitting hearsay statements made in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the indictment did not suffer a constructive amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the agent's eavesdropping was lawful, and the drug-sniffing dog's actions did not constitute a search. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's inference of intent to distribute for two de
-
A defendant cannot be convicted of possession of drugs based on constructive possession without evidence of ultimate control over the drugs, and a flawed jury instruction on co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States can lead to reversal.
-
The court held that evidence of a cocaine negotiation was admissible as inextricably intertwined with the charged marijuana conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana.
-
The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad acts evidence, properly denied the motion for acquittal on the firearm charge, and correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for obstruction of justice.
-
The court held that the wiretap application was supported by sufficient probable cause and the information was not stale, and that the searches of the vessels were lawful due to probable cause and exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrants, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate material omissions from the affidavit under the Franks test.
-
A sentencing court may consider drug quantities not covered by counts of conviction if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, and a defendant's entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not automati
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or mistrial based on co-defendant's opening statement.
-
The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered after a new trial was granted, and that the district court erred in granting the motion for a new trial.
-
The court held that the boarding and subsequent search of the vessel did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, based on reasonable suspicion of a customs violation.
-
A district court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines based on general community sentiment or the incidence of crime in a particular locality, as these factors are considered by the Sentencing Commission and departures must be based on circumstances specific to the offender a
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender provision, are constitutional and properly applied, and that residential burglary qualifies as a crime of violence.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction, refusing to strike testimony after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment, or admitting hotel registration records. Any error in the jury instruction regarding pr
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the admission of prior wrongful acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the use of a defendant's post-arrest silence to impeach an exculpatory story may violate due process if Miranda warnings were given, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if warnings were provided.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were affirmed because the Customs officers had reasonable suspicion to board the vessel, the trial judge properly denied the recusal motion, and the prosecutor's comments on the defendants' silence were permissible.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence, finding the district court erred in granting a two-level reduction for minor participant status without sufficient factual basis.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting the voir dire, admitting evidence of prior similar acts, or limiting cross-examination, as the procedures followed and evidence admitted were permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and relevan
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and search were lawful because probable cause existed based on corroborated informer's tip and plain view observation of contraband, and the district court did not err in denying an in camera interview with the informer.
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to believe the car was in the garage and that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the garage for arrest, and that the entry complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
-
The court held that the cumulative effect of judicial errors and prosecutorial misconduct, along with a conflict of interest affecting one defendant's counsel, deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to accompany the agent to an office was not voluntary, rendering his subsequent arrest illegal and the discovered cocaine inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of government inducement to warrant an entrapment jury instruction and that the jury charge on aiding and abetting was adequate. The court also found that the denial of access to the informant's address, whil
-
Statements by the prosecutor and trial judge did not constitute an improper comment on the defendants' failure to testify, and authenticated transcripts of consensual tape recordings are admissible with participant testimony as to accuracy.