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 affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants but remanded for the district court to make written findings regarding disputed facts in the presentence report for one defendant.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the denial of due process claims, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing calculations.
-
The court affirmed conspiracy convictions and sentences for Perfetto and Ball, vacated CCE convictions for Holt and Perfetto, and vacated Holt's obstruction of justice sentence for a new hearing.
-
The court held that the district court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for the obstruction offense when it had already enhanced the underlying drug offense level, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and aggravating role, nor in calculating the drug quantity or accepting the guilty plea for violating the Travel Act.
-
The court held that the admission of a defendant's prior drug conviction was permissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to establish knowledge, even if propensity was a factor in the inference.
-
A district court has discretion to instruct a jury on the consequences of an insanity acquittal, but this discretion is limited to situations where the jury might mistakenly believe acquittees go free.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded one defendant's sentence due to missing findings. The court found no reversible error in the admission of statements, business cards, witness testimony, or in rulings regarding mistrials, j
-
The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error, and the limitation on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no merit in his claims regarding the indictment, evidence, jury instructions, sentencing enhancements, upward departure, or denial of downward departure.
-
The court held that the statute and guideline basing sentencing on the number of marijuana plants, rather than weight, does not violate due process.
-
The en banc court held that even if the agent's actions constituted a search, it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no plain error in the prosecutor's argumen
-
The court held that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(vii) are constitutional, and that using corroborated hearsay in a pre-sentence report for sentence enhancement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
-
The court held that the defendant's warrantless arrest and the subsequent search of his car were lawful, and that the prosecutor's statements and the admission of the defendant's statement were not prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knowingly possessed cocaine with intent to distribute or voluntarily participated in a conspiracy to do so.
-
The court held that cocaine seized pursuant to a warrant was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt for drug conspiracy and distribution. The court also affirmed a sentence enhancement for firearm possession during a drug offense.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the trial court did not err in denying production of documents used to refresh a witness's recollection, the finding regarding the quantity of drugs involved in a larger conspiracy was not clearly erroneou
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and the life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court held that an upward departure from sentencing based solely on the large quantity of drugs involved was impermissible when the Sentencing Guidelines already accounted for such quantities.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, admitting the tape recording and transcript, or applying sentencing enhancements, affirming the conviction and sentence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, the indictment was properly sealed and not outside the statute of limitations, and the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate.
-
The court held that there was no impermissible variance between the charge and proof, sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and the weight of the beeswax-cocaine mixture was correctly used for sentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and did not prejudice the defendant, thus not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the admission of certain testimony and prosecutorial comments did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Ocampo's convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, but the search warrant was supported by probable cause and the convictions and sentences of Arango and Donato were affirmed.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a Rule 15(a) motion to depose an unavailable witness, requiring reversal and remand.
-
The court held that the search of an employee was consensual under company policy, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute drugs in a prison context, and a witness's brief mention of an informant did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned his Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the luggage by disclaiming ownership, thus validating the warrantless search based on third-party consent.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on directed verdicts, severance, hearsay, and jury instructions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that convictions for conspiracy and attempt arising from the same transaction do not violate double jeopardy.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion and the sentence imposed, finding the encounter voluntary and the sentence within statutory limits.
-
The court held that the district court's findings regarding the officers' knowledge of the defendant's association with Bitti were clearly erroneous, and the initial encounter likely constituted a seizure, requiring further examination of the stop's justification and consent's vo
-
The court held that the investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the search of the bag was consensual, and the Miranda warnings given to Gonzalez, though imperfectly administered, were sufficient.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the suspects and a reasonable belief that the suspects were dangerous, justifying the search of the van.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that the challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines, jury selection, jury instructions, and the denial of the suppression motion were unavailing.
-
The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, when the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, is appealable and can bring the underlying judgment up for review if intent is clear and no prejudice results. The court also held that the evidenc
-
The court held that the district court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm during a drug offense, as the evidence supported the finding that the defendant knew the weapon was present and connected to the criminal activity.
-
The court held that consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for multiple firearms used in a single drug trafficking offense violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, but affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the underlying convictions.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of drug offenses and that his prior conviction qualified as a felony for career offender sentencing purposes.
-
The court held that the district court erred in interpolating between sentencing levels and must determine the specific drug quantity. However, the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional and apply to the defendant's conduct.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on CB transmissions and observed behavior, and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his truck.
-
-
The court held that evidence of prior bad acts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible under the plain view doctrine and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and the sentencing was proper.
-
Retrial on severed marijuana counts is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the severance was manifestly necessary due to improper joinder, and the defendants did not waive their rights by seeking a complete severance.
-
The court held that the defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the locked suitcases, thus he could not challenge the legality of the search.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was not justified by exigent circumstances, and the subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal entry, requiring suppression of the seized evidence.
-
The dissenting judge believes the government met tests to excuse the absence of a search warrant and would remand for further hearing on the validity of an invitation to search.
-
The court held that a DPS officer had statutory authority under the Texas Motor Carriers Act to inspect the cargo of a truck that lacked license plates, and this authority did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the electronic surveillance was properly authorized, the information was not stale, and the necessity requirement was met. It also held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a car trunk not belonging to him.