18 USC 924(c) Firearm Enhancement: When Your Co-Defendant's Gun Adds Years the Judge Can't Reduce

Your co-defendant left a gun in the car during a drug deal. You never touched it. You might not have even known it was there. And now your facing a mandatory five years in federal prison - consecutive to whatever sentence you get for the underlying drug charge - and the judge has zero discretion to reduce it. Not one day. Not even if the judge believes the sentence is unjust, cruel, or irrational. Welcome to 18 USC 924(c), the firearm enhancement that isn't really about guns. It's a sentencing trap that gives prosecutors complete control over your prison term through charging decisions alone.

At Spodek Law Group, we defend clients facing 924(c) charges in federal court. We understand that these charges destroy plea leverage, force cooperation, and add mandatory consecutive years that judges are powerless to reduce. Todd Spodek has represented clients charged with stacked 924(c) counts, machine gun enhancements, and conspiracy liability in cases were the defendant never touched the firearm. Our mission is to challenge the "in furtherance" nexus that prosecutors rely on, negotiate 924(c) dismissals in plea agreements, and fight for clients trapped in a system that Congress itself admitted produces unjust sentences. Call 212-300-5196.

The 924(c) enhancement was designed to deter violent criminals from using guns during serious crimes. But it's become a prosecution weapon. Because federal prosecutors can charge it in drug cases were the gun was never touched, never seen, and possibly belonged to someone else entirely. And because judges are legally prohibited from reducing the mandatory minimums. Even one day. The statute adds 5, 7, 10, 25, or 30 years mandatory consecutive to whatever sentence you get for the underlying crime. Before the First Step Act in 2018, prosecutors stacked multiple 924(c) counts from the same case and turned $350 in marijuana sales into 55 years in federal prison. Congress admitted that was unjust and changed the law. But only for people sentenced after December 21, 2018.

924(c) Isn't a Gun Charge - It's a Mandatory Sentencing Trap the Judge Can't Reduce

Most people think 924(c) is a gun charge that enhances your sentence. Like a state charge were the judge adds time because you had a weapon. That's not what this is. This is a seperate federal offense with it's own mandatory minimum sentence that runs consecutive to your underlying conviction. The judge doesn't enhance anything. The judge imposses a second sentence - 5, 7, 10, 25, or 30 years depending on how prosecutors charged it - and that sentence starts after you finish serving time for the drug trafficking or crime of violence.

Federal judges have complained about this for decades. They've written opinions, given interviews, testified before Congress. Judge Paul Cassell, who sentenced Weldon Angelos to 55 years for marijuana sales, called it "one of the most troubling" sentences he ever faced in five years on the federal bench. He said it was "one of the chief reasons he chose to step down as a judge." Because he was forced to impose sentences he believed were unjust. But mandatory minimums remained. They're still here. And judges still have zero discretion.

Here's how it works. You get charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs - lets say your looking at 5-10 years under the sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors add a 924(c) count because there was a gun in the stash house. Now your facing 5-10 years for the drug charge plus a mandatory 5 years for the gun. Those sentences run consecutive. So your minimum exposure just went from 5 years to 10 years. And there's nothing your attorney can argue at sentencing to reduce the 924(c) count. No mitigating factors. No minor role adjustment. No acceptance of responsibility discount. The 5 years is mandatory.

If prosecutors charge it as "brandishing" instead of simple possession? Seven years mandatory. Discharge the firearm? Ten years. Machine gun, silencer, short-barreled rifle, or destructive device? Thirty years. Every year is mandatory. Every year runs consecutive to the underlying offense.

This is why federal defendants plead guilty at a 90%+ rate. Once 924(c) is charged, going to trial means risking mandatory decades the judge cannot reduce. The prosecutor becomes judge and jury. They control your sentence through the charging decision. Not the judge through the sentencing hearing.

The Five-Year Minimum That Starts After Your Drug Sentence Ends

The word "consecutive" does alot of work in federal sentencing. Most people don't understand what it means until there sitting in a courtroom and the judge is imposing two seperate sentences - one for the drug trafficking, one for the 924(c) count - and explaining that the second sentence doesn't start until the first one ends.

So if you get 10 years for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and 5 years for 924(c), your not serving 15 years total. Your serving 10 years, and then when that's done, you start serving the 5 years. Fifteen years total, but structured so that the gun time is pure punishment with no overlap. No concurrent credit. No good time credit applied across both sentences.

Here's the irony. 924(c) was designed to combat violent crime. But 53.5% of 924(c) convictions involve drug trafficking, not violence. A gun in a car during a marijuana sale triggers the same mandatory minimum as armed robbery. The statute doesn't distinguish. If there's a firearm possessed "in furtherance of" drug trafficking, that's enough. And "in furtherance" is broad enough to catch almost anything.

Courts have held that prosecutors need to show "some nexus" between the gun and the drug crime. But the factors are wide open:

• Proximity to the drugs? Check.
• Accessibility of the gun? Check.
• The "nature of drug trafficking" - which courts say "often involves guns" - as expert testimony? Check.

If there's a gun anywhere near the drugs, prosecutors will charge it.

And here's what defense attorneys know but most clients don't understand. You don't even need to touch the gun. Constructive possession is sufficient. The Second Circuit has held that "in order to establish that a defendant possessed a firearm within the meaning of § 924(c), the government need not prove that he physically possessed it; proof of constructive possession is sufficient."

So the five-year mandatory minimum for "possessing" a firearm during drug trafficking can apply to a gun you never touched, never held, and never saw - as long as it was in a place you had access to during the offense.

How Your Co-Defendant's Gun Becomes Your Mandatory Minimum

It gets worse. All members of a drug trafficking conspiracy can be charged with 924(c) if any co-conspirator possessed a weapon and other members were "aware" of it. This is co-conspirator liability. And it's one of the most common issues that arises in multi-defendant federal drug cases.

You never held the gun. You never saw it. But if prosecutors can prove you "should have known" your co-defendant had a gun during the conspiracy, your facing the mandatory minimum. And what does "should have known" mean?

• Wiretap evidence were co-defendants discussed "protection" or "security" during drug transactions
• Testimony from cooperating witnesses that guns were "always around" during drug deals
• Expert testimony about the "nature of drug trafficking" and how firearms are commonly used

The jury instruction literally says: "All conspirators are liable for reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance thereof." If it was reasonably foreseeable that someone in the drug conspiracy would possess a gun, and you were a knowing participant in that conspiracy, you can be held liable for 924(c) even if you never touched the weapon.

Here's the nightmare scenario. Your a low-level participant in a drug conspiracy. You made a few deliveries. You packaged drugs a couple times. You had a minor role. The lead defendant - the guy actually running the operation - kept a gun in his car for protection. You didn't know about it. But at trial, a cooperating witness testifies that "everyone knew" the lead guy carried a gun. The government argues you "should have known" based on the nature of the drug trade and your involvement in the conspiracy. The jury convicts. Now your facing 5 years mandatory consecutive for a gun that wasn't yours, that you never saw, based on what you "should have known."

This is constructive possession plus conspiracy liability. It's vicarious sentencing. Your serving 5-30 years consecutive for someone else's gun.

Weldon Angelos Got 55 Years for $350 in Marijuana - The Judge Called It Cruel and Imposed It Anyway

Weldon Angelos was a 24-year-old music producer. He worked with Snoop Dogg and Tupac Shakur. In 2002, he sold $350 worth of marijuana to a confidential informant over three occasions. The informant claimed Angelos had a firearm strapped to his ankle during the sales. No photographs. No physical evidence. Just the informant's testimony.

Prosecutors charged three 924(c) counts - one for each drug sale. Under the law at the time, the first count carried a 5-year mandatory minimum. The second count - because it was "subsequent" to the first count, even though both counts were charged in the same indictment - carried a 25-year mandatory minimum. The third count? Another 25 years mandatory.

Do the math. 5 + 25 + 25 = 55 years. For $350 in marijuana. All three sentences running consecutive to each other and consecutive to the underlying drug sentence.

Judge Paul Cassell imposed the sentence in November 2004. But he also wrote a 67-page opinion calling it "unjust, cruel, and even irrational." He compared Angelos's 55-year sentence to much shorter federal sentences given to "repeat child rapists and airplane hijackers." He urged President Bush to commute the sentence to 18 years or less. Then he imposed all 55 years. Because mandatory minimums gave him no choice.

Angelos served 13 years in federal prison. He was released in May 2016 after a bipartisan campaign involving celebrities like Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg, political figures like Senator Mike Lee and Charles Koch, and ultimately the federal prosecutor who had second thoughts about the case. President Barack Obama granted him clemency. President Donald Trump granted him a full pardon in December 2020.

But here's the part that should make you stop and think. Judge Cassell called the sentence one of the most troubling he'd ever imposed. He said it was one of the chief reasons he left the bench. The sentence was so disproportionate, so obviously unjust, that it required presidential intervention to correct. And yet, under mandatory minimum laws, the judge had to impose it. There was no discretion. No ability to consider fairness, proportionality, or the individual circumstances of the case.

That's what 924(c) does. It removes judging from judges. The prosecutor decides what to charge. The statute dictates what sentence must be imposed. The judge reads the mandatory minimum, calls it cruel, and imposes it anyway.

Congress Admitted the Sentences Were Unjust - But Only Fixed Them Going Forward

The Weldon Angelos case became a symbol of everything wrong with mandatory minimum stacking. So Congress passed the First Step Act in 2018. The law eliminated the provisions that had required multiple 924(c) firearm mandatory-minimum sentences to be stacked to include recidivist 25-year terms. Under current law, even if prosecutors charge three 924(c) counts in the same case, each one carries only the base 5, 7, or 10-year minimum, depending on conduct.

This was genuine reform. It meant that conduct that previously resulted in 5 + 25 + 25 = 55 years would now result in 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 years. Still harsh. Still consecutive. But not the absurd stacking that destroyed lives.

But here's the trap. Congress didn't make the fix retroactive. Defendants sentenced under the old stacking regime before December 21, 2018 generally cannot benefit from the change. They are serving sentences that Congress acknowledged were unjust - sentences Congress fixed for future defendants - but there not eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act.

Think about what that means. Two defendants. Same conduct. Same criminal history. One sentenced on December 20, 2018. The other sentenced on December 22, 2018. The first defendant gets 55 years under the old stacking rules. The second defendant gets 15 years under the new law. Fourty years difference. Same crime. Different sentencing date.

The Supreme Court is currently considering Hewitt v. United States in the 2024-2025 term. Tony Hewitt was convicted in 2008 of several 924(c) charges connected to Texas bank robberies and received a 305-year prison term, 275 of which came from stacking. This case presents the unusual situation of the Government filing a brief in support of the defendant rather than in opposition. Both parties are arguing the same position - that defendants whose sentences were vacated should get the benefit of the First Step Act. Because even the government recognizes that the old stacking regime was unconscionable.

What Defense Attorneys Actually Do When 924(c) Gets Charged

The first thing a good federal defense attorney does when 924(c) is charged is challenge the nexus. The government must prove the firearm was possessed "in furtherance of" the drug trafficking or crime of violence. That's the "in furtherance" element. And it requires a specific connection between the gun and the crime. Not just proximity. Not just simultaneous possession. A nexus.

Weak Nexus Arguments:

• The gun was locked in a safe in a bedroom closet and the drug transaction happened in the kitchen
• The gun was unloaded, disassembled, and stored separately from the drugs
• The gun belonged to a roommate who wasn't involved in the drug conspiracy

But if the gun was loaded, accessible, and in close proximity to the drugs or drug proceeds? That's usually enough. Courts have held that "the jury may infer the requisite nexus between the firearm and the crime when the firearm is kept in close proximity to the drugs, it is quickly accessible, and there is expert testimony regarding the use of firearms in connection with drug trafficking."

The second thing defense attorneys do is negotiate. Because getting the 924(c) count dropped in a plea agreement is often worth pleading guilty to the underlying charge. A federal prosecutor who's willing to dismiss the 924(c) count in exchange for a guilty plea to drug conspiracy just saved the defendant 5-30 years. That's enormous leverage. And prosecutors know it. Which is why they use 924(c) charges to extract cooperation, guilty pleas, and testimony against co-defendants.

If the 924(c) count can't be dismissed, defense attorneys try to get it reduced:

• Brandishing down to possession (saves 2 years)
• Discharge down to brandishing (saves 3 years)
• Machine gun down to simple possession (saves 25 years)

Every reduction in the mandatory minimum is years off the sentence.

The third thing defense attorneys do - and this is critical - is advise clients about cooperation. If your facing a 924(c) charge and the evidence is strong, the only way to get below the mandatory minimum is a government-sponsored downward departure under 5K1.1. That requires substantial assistance. Which means cooperating. Providing information about other targets. Testifying. Wearing a wire.

Some clients refuse to cooperate. That's there right. But they need to understand what it means. No cooperation = no 5K1.1 departure = mandatory minimum sentence with zero judicial discretion. If the mandatory minimum is 10 years consecutive, your serving 10 years consecutive. The judge can't help you.

The 88% Conviction Rate and the Mandatory Minimum Cascade

Of 61,678 federal cases reported in fiscal year 2024, 2,522 involved convictions under 18 USC 924(c). And 88% of section 924(c) individuals were also convicted of another offense. Of those individuals:

• 53.5% were convicted of drug trafficking
• 23.3% of robbery
• 7.9% of another firearms offense

This means the 924(c) charge is almost always a "stacked" enhancement on top of substantial underlying sentences.

Federal prosecutors don't bring 924(c) charges unless there certain to win. The conviction rate in federal court approaches 90% for defendants who go to trial. If your indicted on 924(c) charges and you go to trial, the odds of acquittal are close to zero.

This makes the mandatory minimums even more coercive. Your not gambling on acquittal. Your gambling on whether the jury will believe your version of events over the government's version - and if you lose, your facing mandatory decades that the judge cannot reduce.

The Cascade That Happens:

Cascade #1: 924(c) charge → plea leverage destroyed → cooperation becomes only option → now your testifying against co-defendants. Once prosecutors add a 924(c) count, your sentencing exposure jumps by 5-30 years mandatory. Your attorney tells you the only way to get relief is a 5K1.1 substantial assistance departure. Now your wearing a wire. Your testifying against friends. Hoping the prosecutor recommends a reduction - which there not required to grant.

Cascade #2: Gun in the stash house → 924(c) count → can't make bail → lose job → can't pay attorney → accept overworked public defender → worse plea deal → longer sentence. Federal pretrial detention rates are high for 924(c) defendants because judges view gun charges as dangerousness factors under the Bail Reform Act.

The trial right is theoretical. The mandatory minimums make it practically impossible to exercise.

Spodek Law Group - Federal Defense When 924(c) Destroys Plea Leverage

At Spodek Law Group, we represent clients charged with 18 USC 924(c) firearm enhancements in federal court. We understand that these charges are prosecution weapons designed to force cooperation and eliminate trial as a realistic option. Todd Spodek has defended clients facing stacked 924(c) counts, machine gun enhancements, and co-conspirator liability for firearms they never touched.

We challenge the "in furtherance" nexus by analyzing the proximity, accessibility, and connection between the firearm and the underlying offense. We negotiate 924(c) dismissals in plea agreements when possible. We evaluate trial risk based on the strength of constructive possession and co-conspirator liability evidence. And we advise clients on cooperation decisions when that's the only path to a sentence below the mandatory minimum.

If your facing a 924(c) charge, you need an attorney who understands federal sentencing, mandatory minimums, and the leverage prosecutors have through charging decisions. The judge can't help you. The mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion entirely. Your defense has to happen before trial - through motion practice, plea negotiations, and strategic decisions about cooperation.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. We handle 924(c) cases in federal courts across the country. We know how these charges work. We know what prosecutors want. And we know how to fight for clients trapped in a system were the sentencing is determined by the indictment, not the judge.