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
-
Collins appealed her sentences for violating community control and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing the combined sentences exceeded the maximum permitted under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court agreed, finding that the 3.5 years incarceration followe
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentencing court's discretionary decisions regarding downward departures were not appealable.
-
The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements without required findings on the record constitutes reversible error. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct
-
The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the defendant's offense level upward for his role as an organizer in the drug conspiracy.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the money laundering conviction, Koller's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the government's conduct did not constitute outrageous conduct. Sentencing was affirmed.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences for conspiracy and related drug offenses, and dismissed one defendant's appeal regarding firearm possession.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marihuana, and that the defense of entrapment was not established as a matter of law.
-
The court affirmed the conviction on most counts, vacating the conspiracy conviction due to double jeopardy concerns, and found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's due process and equal protection rights were not violated by federal prosecution, the search warrant was valid, co-defendant testimony was admissible, jury instructions were adequate, and the sentence was properly calculated.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
-
The court held that the indictment's joinder of offenses was proper, certain extrinsic evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
-
The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in its definition and application of the deliberate ignorance standard, asserting that the evidence supported the jury instruction.
-
A defendant waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence for sentencing enhancements by failing to object to the factual basis in the district court, and such failure does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if it was a reasonable tactical decision.
-
The court held that a defendant's sentence may be based on reasonably foreseeable conduct of co-conspirators, but not on negotiated drug amounts if the defendant was not reasonably capable of producing them. A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on a gove
-
The court held that jeopardy had not attached when the first indictment was dismissed, and that the defendants' speedy trial rights were not violated. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the marijuana plants were located in an open field, not within the curtilage of the defendant's home, and thus were not protected by the Fourth Amendment from a warrantless search and seizure.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
-
A jury's acquittal on a specific count does not prevent a sentencing court from considering the acquitted conduct if it is established by reliable evidence and relevant to the offense of conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, and that the giving of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was harmless error. The court al
-
The court held that the defendant's Miranda waiver, confession, and consent to search were voluntary, the admission of weapons was proper, the evidence was sufficient to prove predisposition, and the life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was a valid border search, his statements were voluntary, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
-
The court held that circumstantial evidence, including tracking, footprints, and proximity to drugs, was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import and possess marijuana with intent to distribute, as well as for importation and possession with intent to distribute
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Arnoldo's conviction for possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, but insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for both Arnoldo and Fidel.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that while the search of the luggage was valid and the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the use of an alias was improper without a findi
-
The court held that while the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the sentences imposed were improper because the district court failed to properly apply the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987 to offenses committed after its effective date.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possession with intent to distribute, and that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in jury selection under Batson.
-
The court's prior decisions, particularly Swinehart, may have established a per se reversal rule for certain prosecutorial misconduct, but this conflicts with Supreme Court precedent requiring a prejudice analysis.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by attributing a larger drug quantity to the defendant based on his admissions and evidence presented at sentencing.
-
The court held that while convictions are affirmed, sentences must be vacated and remanded for resentencing due to improper application of amended statutory provisions regarding supervised release.
-
The court's majority opinion incorrectly expands precedent to grant jail-time credit in situations not covered by existing law.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the defendant's train roomette and knapsack because the train's imminent departure and the likelihood of evidence removal created a reasonable necessity for immediate action.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion for the border patrol agents to stop and search the appellant's truck, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The court held that while the district court's pretrial detention order was substantively correct, it was procedurally infirm for failing to provide written findings of fact and a statement of reasons. The case is remanded for the district court to articulate its findings and rea
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for recusal, dismissal of the indictment, or suppression of evidence, and that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
-
-
The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the Franks hearing but did err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under an overly broad warrant.
-
Venue was properly laid in New Mexico under the doctrine of constructive possession, as the defendants retained the ability to control the suitcase even as it entered the state.
-
The court held that the roadblock, detention, and consents to search were constitutional and lawful, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of appending a written order to the pre-sentence repor
-
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and correctly determined that a prosecutorial remark did not impermissibly prejudice a defendant's right not to testify.
-
The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
-
The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception was proper, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding alleged prior misconduct or in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that the district court correctly excluded the time from the filing of pretrial motions to their disposition when calculating the 70-day period under the Speedy Trial Act, and that the evidence presented did not warrant an entrapment jury instruction.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidentiary rulings were proper and sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
A caretaker with implied authority from the owner can validly consent to a search of a vacation house, and initial statements made by a suspect before being considered in custody are admissible without Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that a five-and-a-half-month adjournment between jury selection and the commencement of trial, without stated justification, violated the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike a juror, imposing consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances, admitting evidence of unexplained wealth, admitting a deceased witness's prior testimony, or denying a motion to
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to distribute and that any error in jury instructions was harmless or not plain error.
-
The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and evidence, joinder of defendants was proper, and various evidentiary rulings were either harmless error or not grounds for reversal.