Federal firearm charges can transform a manageable sentence into decades of imprisonment. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense or crime of violence triggers mandatory consecutive sentences—five years minimum for simple possession, seven years if the firearm is brandished, and ten years if it is discharged.
In September 2020, I tried one of the first major federal cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina after the COVID outbreak. The jury found my client not guilty on two counts of using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and not guilty of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. This acquittal saved my client from mandatory consecutive sentences that would have added years to his imprisonment.
Understanding 924(c) Liability
The government must prove more than simple proximity between firearms and criminal activity. Under Supreme Court precedent, the firearm must facilitate or have the potential to facilitate the underlying offense. Merely possessing a gun while also engaging in drug activity does not automatically trigger 924(c) liability.
Defense strategies often focus on severing the connection between the firearm and the alleged predicate offense. If the gun was kept for personal protection unrelated to drug activity, or if it was not accessible during the charged conduct, these facts can support acquittal on the firearm counts even when the underlying offense results in conviction.
The Stakes of 924(c) Charges
What makes 924(c) particularly devastating is its mandatory consecutive nature. These sentences run after, not concurrent with, sentences for the underlying offense. A defendant convicted of drug trafficking might face five years for that offense, but adding a 924(c) conviction means a minimum of ten years total.
Second or subsequent 924(c) convictions carry even harsher penalties—twenty-five years mandatory minimum. In multi-count indictments, prosecutors sometimes stack multiple 924(c) charges, threatening defendants with effective life sentences to coerce guilty pleas.
Effective Defense Approaches
In my federal practice, I have developed several approaches to 924(c) charges. First, challenging the underlying predicate offense can eliminate 924(c) liability entirely. If the drug trafficking or violent crime charge fails, the firearm enhancement falls with it.
Second, attacking the nexus between the firearm and the offense can succeed even when the predicate crime is proven. In my 2020 trial, the jury thoroughly rejected the government’s theory about how the firearms related to drug activity. The acquittal on firearm counts dramatically improved my client’s sentencing exposure.
Third, federal defense often requires examining how evidence was obtained. Fourth Amendment violations can lead to suppression of both drug evidence and firearms, potentially gutting the prosecution’s case.
The CJA Panel and Federal Practice
I serve on the federal CJA (Criminal Justice Act) Panel, meaning federal judges appoint me to represent defendants who cannot afford private counsel in serious federal cases. This appointment reflects recognition by the federal judiciary of my competence in complex federal prosecutions.
The federal public defender system provides capable representation, but defendants who can afford private counsel benefit from personalized attention and resources that public defender caseloads sometimes cannot accommodate.
If you face federal firearm charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina or elsewhere in the Fourth Circuit, understanding your defense options is critical. Contact The Chetson Firm to discuss how experienced federal defense counsel can protect your future.