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 a conspiracy conviction and that the district court did not err in refusing a buyer-seller jury instruction that was inconsistent with the defense's trial strategy.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in including the nine kilograms under negotiation and the forty kilograms from prior transactions in the sentencing calculation, nor in denying the acceptance of responsibility reduction.
-
The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine.
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership of luggage forfeits any expectation of privacy, allowing police to search the luggage without a warrant, even if the defendant later allegedly consented or a dog alerted to the luggage.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the suitcase containing cocaine, and his subsequent seizure was reasonable, thus the cocaine was admissible.
-
The court held that a defendant who goes to trial to assert issues not related to factual guilt may be entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction, but otherwise, denying factual guilt at trial forecloses such a reduction. The court also held that the erroneous admissio
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no reversible error in admitting co-conspirator statements, and no misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appealing defendants, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the proceedings. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims were dismissed without prejudice.
-
The erroneous admission of prior arrest and conviction evidence was not harmless and prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal.
-
The court held that the search of an apparently mobile vehicle, even if inoperable, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment's vehicle exception if officers have probable cause and reasonably believe it is mobile. The court also held that a defendant is not entitled to a minor p
-
The court concurs with the majority opinion but emphasizes the need for district judges to carefully scrutinize peremptory strikes to prevent racial discrimination.
-
The court held that the admission of a codefendant's redacted confession, substituting a neutral term for the defendant's name, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it is not powerfully incriminating on its face. The court also held that drug ledgers are admissible as cir
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the speedy trial rights were not violated, evidence was properly admitted despite jurisdictional and warrant challenges, and sentencing calculations were correct.
-
A prior Michigan conviction for a 'two-year misdemeanor' constitutes a felony for the purpose of federal drug sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
-
The court's judgment is concurred with, but the reasoning differs from the panel's.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, packaging, and financial transactions, was sufficient for a jury to find the substance was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the Confrontation Clause
-
The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and a prior guilty plea to a substantive offense did not bar a subsequent conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that Rodriguez's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the FBI took his statement without his appointed counsel present, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Napoles and Guerra. The court also held that the voir dire did not violate Napoles'
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or its decision regarding juror qualification, and that the admission of certain documents, while potentially erroneous, did not constitute plain
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a suppression hearing or a continuance, and that sufficient evidence supported the firearm conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that the defendant acted as a manager for sentencing enhancement purposes and that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions.
-
The court held that the encounter was consensual, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence enhancement was proper.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of 150 pounds of marijuana for offense level calculation for Valenzuela and Garrido, requiring resentencing. However, the court affirmed the denial of Carlos's pretrial motions and Ismael's sentencing enhanc
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing on the issue of obstruction of justice.
-
The evidence presented was sufficient to support the district court's finding of guilt for intending to distribute marijuana.
-
A conviction that is expungeable under state law but not formally expunged can serve as a predicate offense for federal firearm possession charges, and can be considered for Sentencing Guidelines calculations, unless state law expressly prohibits firearm possession following rest
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the appearance of the duct-taped package and the defendant's behavior.
-
The court held that while the district court erred in failing to ensure the defendant had an opportunity to review and discuss the presentence report, remand for resentencing was not required because the defendant suffered no prejudice from the violation.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the investigative stop, the subsequent search and arrest were lawful, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that prior state convictions for cocaine possession, even if involving conduct related to a federal continuing criminal enterprise, can be included in the criminal history score if the conduct is severable and not explicitly charged as part of the instant federal o
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the admission of DEA agent testimony did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the ex parte contact between a law clerk and a juror did not violate due process rights, especially since no objection was raised below.
-
The court affirmed the conviction for failure to appear but vacated the drug convictions due to improper trial in absentia.
-
The court denied the petition for rehearing because it attempted to introduce new facts and reargue points already considered, failing to meet the standards for such petitions.
-
The court held that while the district court misstated the definition of 'carrying' a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly established the firearm's availability.
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper because the traffic stop was valid, the subsequent detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, consent to search was voluntary, and statements were made after a valid waiver of Miranda rights. The sentence w
-
The court held that police had reasonable suspicion to detain the luggage for a dog sniff, even if consent was not voluntary, because the detention was justified by articulable, objective facts.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or coercion, and that the sentencing enhancements were proper.
-
The court held that the officer's intrusion into the vehicle's airspace was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the totality of the circumstances, and that a disassembled but readily reassemblable shotgun warranted a sentencing enhancement.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the bathroom for a shotgun was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the need to recover a dangerous weapon believed to be nearby and accessible to others.
-
The court held that the dog sniff was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and that probable cause existed to search the vehicle, independently supported by the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court also affirmed the trial court's Batson ruling and other issues raised.
-
The court held that the search warrants were valid, the admission of certain hearsay statements was either proper or harmless error, other crimes evidence was admissible, severance was not required, prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant reversal, and the Sentencing Guidelines
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing identification, removing a juror, or calculating sentences, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
-
A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects preceding the plea, and federal drug and firearm statutes are valid exercises of Congress' commerce power, thus not violating the Tenth Amendment.
-
The dissenting judge believes the other act evidence was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and not unfairly prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of drug and firearm offenses, and that the prosecution met the statutory requirements for plant quantity and firearm use.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the sentencing calculations were correct.
-
The court held that the weight of cocaine is a sentencing factor for the judge, not a jury element, and the district court erred by deferring to the jury's implicit finding on weight.
-
The court held that a district court's misstatement regarding the term of supervised release constitutes harmless error if it does not materially influence the defendant's decision to plead guilty. The court also modified the sentence to conform to statutory requirements for supe
-
The court held that while allowing transcripts with extraneous interpretations was an abuse of discretion, it constituted harmless error. It also held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction for Rena Jr.