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
-
A district court cannot depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on a belief that the career offender provisions are unconstitutional or create unwarranted disparities within a single case.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, including the drug amount from a dismissed count and denying a minimal role adjustment, and that the district court understood its authority to depart but properly declined to do so.
-
The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) by not making required findings or determinations on challenged facts in the presentence report. The court also affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of co-d
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing due to the district court's failure to comply with procedural rules regarding presentence reports.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the search and seizure, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by limiting closing arguments regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence and by criticizing defense counsel, denying one defendant a fair trial, but that such errors were harmless as to the other defendant due to strong
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on witness testimony, nor in its sentencing determination, and that conflicting witness testimony does not establish the government knowingly presented false evidence.
-
-
The court held that the seizure of cocaine and a gun was permissible under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that a government informant's presence during joint defense preparations did not violate the Sixth Amendment without demonstrable prejudice to the defendants. The court also held that alleged omissions in the search warrant affidavit regarding the opening of a car
-
The court held that the late production of a witness statement did not violate the Jencks Act absent bad faith or prejudice, and that notice requirements for sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 do not apply to sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
-
Inconsistent jury verdicts, including an acquittal on substantive counts and a conviction on a conspiracy count, do not automatically require reversal of the conspiracy conviction if sufficient evidence supports it.
-
The court held that an agent's insertion of his head into a vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, and consent to search luggage does not automatically purge the taint of a prior illegal search if intervening circumstances are lacking.
-
The court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in marijuana buried in a washing machine on property not owned by him, and that the money laundering statute applied to domestic mailings of drug proceeds.
-
The court held that evidence obtained via a valid search warrant is admissible even if observed during an unlawful entry, provided the warrant is an independent source. The court also found that the defendant failed to establish a double jeopardy claim and remanded for resentenci
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the firearms charge because the government failed to prove the defendant knew to a practical certainty that his associate would be carrying a gun.
-
-
The court held that the district court erred in using an incorrect guideline sentencing range but did not err in factoring additional marijuana into the base offense level. The case is remanded for resentencing.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was transporting cocaine.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions, viewed in totality, did not constitute reversible error, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a district court may be influenced by the Sentencing Guidelines when imposing a pre-Guidelines sentence, provided the sentence is within statutory limits and not a gross abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial because the prosecutor made unsubstantiated statements about a citizen's tip and cocaine purity during opening arguments, which prejudiced the defendant.
-
The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip corroborated by independent police observations, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle.
-
The government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed drugs with the intent to distribute them.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest Soto based on his suspicious driving and actions observing the drug transaction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on the defendant's criminal history and that the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also affirmed the application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the conviction for operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), finding that the extradition and prosecution did not violate the doctrines of dual criminality or specialty, and that the indictment was sufficient.
-
Federal courts must apply the federal 'totality of the circumstances' standard for probable cause when evaluating state-issued warrants in federal prosecutions, even if state standards are stricter.
-
The court's majority opinion erred in limiting the district judge's discretion regarding conditions of release for defendants involved in controlled drug transactions.
-
A dog's alert at a permanent immigration checkpoint provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search, and a dog sniff itself does not constitute a search.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the use of evidence obtained by a government agent after charges attached violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requiring exclusion and a new trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle was constitutional because the initial stop, detention, and search were based on reasonable suspicion and voluntary consent.
-
Possession with intent to distribute narcotics constitutes a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1), and evidence was sufficient to convict a police officer of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
-
An officer's warrantless search lacked probable cause where it rested solely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip identifying the suspect by name and describing a cocaine sale attempt moments earlier, combined with a five-month-old prior cocaine arrest. Under the totality of circum
-
The court held that the failure to file a supporting affidavit for a search warrant does not invalidate the warrant if other evidence establishes its existence and contents, and that a defendant must show prejudice to warrant reversal for failure to give a requested jury instruct
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that no due process violation occurred regarding the destruction of evidence.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury's findings or the trial court's rulings.
-
The court held that the defendant waived most of his claims by pleading guilty and that his remaining contentions were meritless.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the Federal Speedy Trial Act, as the delays were properly excluded or within statutory limits.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's closing remarks, while potentially improper, did not constitute reversible error due to overwhelming evidence, and the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was sufficient.
-
The court held that the trial court's errors in granting the government an additional peremptory challenge and delaying a ruling on a motion for acquittal were harmless, and that the jury instructions on conspirator liability were proper.
-
The court held that the defendants' knowing and voluntary waiver of their right to separate counsel, despite the trial court's expressed reservations, was effective, and joint representation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the defendant's challenges regarding the selective admission of wiretapped conversations, the accuracy of Spanish-to-English translations, and the jury's assessment of witness credibility were without merit.
-
The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding entrapment, sufficiency of evidence for possession, and the government's witness list were without merit.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its supplemental jury instructions.
-
The court held that the defendant's life sentence for a continuing criminal enterprise conviction was not so grossly disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to unrelated crimes investigated before formal proceedings have begun for those crimes. Furthermore, prosecutorial questioning of a witness about another witness's credibility, if improper, does not warrant reversal if isolated
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent pat-down search were justified under the Fourth Amendment, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful reentry.
-
The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.