Federal Charges for Guns and Drugs Together

Weldon Angelos sold $350 worth of marijuana on three occasions. He had a visible gun during the sales. His sentence: 55 years in federal prison. The judge who imposed that sentence called it "unjust, cruel, and irrational." Then he imposed it anyway - because under 18 USC 924(c), he had no choice. When guns and drugs appear together in a federal case, mandatory minimum sentences stack on top of each other, creating decades of prison time for offenses that might otherwise result in probation. This is the most brutal sentencing law on the federal books.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to explain how 924(c) actually works - not the sanitized version, but the reality that destroys lives. Todd Spodek has defended clients facing gun and drug charges together, and the pattern is always the same: prosecutors use the threat of 924(c) stacking to extract plea deals, or they impose sentences that even judges consider irrational. If you're facing both gun and drug charges in federal court, you need to understand exactly how dangerous this combination is.

The law sounds reasonable on its face. Using a gun during a drug trafficking crime should carry additional penalties. Nobody argues with that. But "using" isn't what the statute actually requires. The law says possession "in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime. That phrase - "in furtherance" - has been stretched so broadly by federal courts that a gun in your bedroom while drugs are in your car can trigger the mandatory minimum. A gun you inherited from your grandfather, sitting unloaded in a closet, can be argued as "in furtherance" because drug dealers "typically" arm themselves. The standard has become almost meaningless.

How Five Years Becomes Fifty Five

Heres how 924(c) stacking works, and why its so devastating. The first gun offense carries a 5-year mandatory minimum. Not 5 years maximum - 5 years minimum, mandatory, no exceptions. The judge cant go below it. And that sentence must run consecutive to - not concurrent with - your underlying drug sentence.

But heres were it gets worse. If prosecutors can identify a "second or subsequent" 924(c) offense, the mandatory minimum jumps to 25 years. Before the First Step Act of 2018, courts interpreted "subsequent" to mean "second count in the same indictment." So if the goverment charged you with three 924(c) counts in the same case - for three separate occasions, or three separate guns - you faced:

• First count: 5 years mandatory
• Second count: 25 years mandatory (treated as "subsequent")
• Third count: 25 years mandatory (another "subsequent")
• Total: 55 years minimum, before your drug sentence even starts

Thats what happened to Weldon Angelos. One day in prison for the marijuana. Fifty-five years for the guns he possessed during the sales. He wasnt a violent criminal. He didnt shoot anyone. He didnt threaten anyone. He just had a gun visible - and based partly on informant testimony with no photographic evidence, prosecutors argued he had multiple guns on multiple occasions. The stacking did the rest.

The Three Words That Destroy Lives

"In furtherance of." Those three words are the trap. The statute says you can be convicted under 924(c) if you "possess a firearm in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime. That language is supposed to mean the gun somehow advanced or facilitated the drug activity. Prosecutors have to show a nexus between the firearm and the trafficking. Thats the theory.

In practice, "in furtherance" has been stretched to absurd lengths.

Courts use several factors to evaluate wheather possession was "in furtherance": the type of drug activity, accessibility of the firearm, type of weapon, wheather the possession was illegal, wheather the gun was loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the circumstances under which the gun was found. Sounds like a rigorous analysis, right? But watch how prosecutors actualy use these factors.

A gun in your bedroom while drugs are in your car? "In furtherance" - becuase it "protected" your stash. A gun you inherited from your grandfather sitting in a closet? "In furtherance" - becuase drug dealers "typically" arm themselves, so any gun must have been for protection. A hunting rifle you havent touched in years? If drugs are found in the same house, prosecutors will argue the rifle was available for protection of the operation.

The circuit courts cant even agree on what the standard means. The Second Circuit - covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont - has a relatively defendant-friendly standard. They require affirmative evidence that the gun was connected to the drug activity. Just being in proximity isnt enough.

The Fifth Circuit - covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi - has said that proximity alone is often sufficient. Same law. Different interpretations. Your fate depends on geography.

At Spodek Law Group, weve seen cases were the gun and drugs werent even in the same location, and prosecutors still argued "in furtherance." The standard has become so flexible that its basicly: if you had a gun and you had drugs, prosecutors will find a way to argue the gun was "in furtherance." Then your facing mandatory consecutive time.

Fifty Five Years For Three Hundred Fifty Dollars

Weldon Angelos was a 24-year-old music producer. Hed worked with artists like Snoop Dogg and Tupac Shakur. He had no prior criminal record. He was a first-time offender. He sold marijuana to a police informant on three occasions, totaling $350.

Heres the kicker. A witness said Angelos had a firearm strapped to his ankle during two of the sales. No photographs existed. No physical evidence. Just informant testimony. For the third gun - the one police found at his home during the search - there was evidence. But for the ankle gun, it was one persons word.

Based on that, prosecutors charged three 924(c) counts. The stacking kicked in. The judge - Paul Cassell, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush - had no choice but to impose 55 years. He called the sentence "unjust, cruel, and even irrational." He noted that Angelos would serve more time then the federal mandatory minimums for hijacking an airplane, kidnapping, or rape. Then he imposed it anyway, becuase thats what mandatory minimums mean. The judge has no discretion.

Cassell later wrote directly to Presidents Bush and Obama urging them to commute the sentence. In his letter, he described being "legally compelled to impose an unjust sentence." A bipartisan coalition - including everyone from Charles Koch to Snoop Dogg to Senator Mike Lee - campaigned for Angelos's release.

After 13 years, prosecutors eventualy agreed to resentencing. Angelos was released in 2016. President Trump gave him a full pardon in 2020. But he spent 13 years of his life in federal prison for selling $350 worth of marijuana and having a gun that, according to the testimony of one informant, was strapped to his ankle.

Since his release, Angelos has become a vocal advocate for criminal justice reform. He founded a non-profit to help others serving excessive sentences. But for every Weldon Angelos who gets national attention and bipartisan support, there are thousands of defendants serving similar sentences in obscurity. They dont have famous friends. They dont have the resources to wage a 13-year campaign for release. They just serve there time, decade after decade, for sentences that Congress has now admitted were unjust.

That case is the clearest example of how 924(c) can destroy a life. But its not an outlier. Its how the law is designed to work. The only thing that made Angelos's case unusual was how much attention it received. The sentence itself was completly typical of how 924(c) stacking works.

The Judge Who Had No Choice

What makes 924(c) particularaly cruel is that judges cant do anything about it. Mandatory minimums mean exactly that: the minimum sentence is set by statute, and judges must impose at least that much. No exceptions for first-time offenders. No exceptions for people who didnt actualy use the gun. No exceptions for sentences that even the judge considers irrational.

Judge Cassell called his own sentence "unjust, cruel, and irrational." He compared it to sentences for far more serious crimes and found it grossly disproportionate. He explicitly stated he was being "legally compelled" to impose it. And then he did, becuase thats his job. Federal judges swear to uphold the law, even laws they find unjust.

This creates a system were prosecutors have enormous leverage. They can threaten stacking to extract plea deals. "Plead guilty to the drug charge, and well drop the 924(c) counts. Go to trial, and well add every gun we can find to the indictment." Defendants face the choice between accepting a plea deal for years in prison or risking decades if convicted at trial.

Todd Spodek has negotiated these cases, and the leverage imbalance is staggering. Prosecutors know that no defendant wants to risk 55 years. So they use 924(c) not just as punishment but as a tool to coerce cooperation and pleas. The threat of stacking is often more powerfull then any evidence they have.

One In Eight Federal Prisoners

How common is this? More common then you might think. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, 13.3% of individuals in federal prison were convicted of possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm under 18 USC 924(c). One in eight federal prisoners. Thats not a niche statute - its one of the most frequently applied sentencing enhancements in the federal system.

Let that sink in. Walk into any federal prison. One out of every eight people you see is there partly becuase of 924(c). This isnt some obscure provision that gets dusted off occassionally. Its a cornerstone of federal prosecution. And the goverment knows exactly how powerfull it is - thats why they add 924(c) counts whenever they can.

In fiscal year 2024, there were 2,522 cases involving 924(c) convictions. The average sentence for individuals convicted under 924(c) was 150 months - twelve and a half years. And thats the average, which includes cases were stacking didnt apply. For cases with multiple counts, sentences can reach 55 years, 80 years, even longer. Some defendants have received effective life sentences for non-violent drug offenses becuase of 924(c) stacking.

Of the individuals convicted under 924(c), 53.5% were also convicted of drug trafficking. Thats the most common underlying offense. More then half of 924(c) cases involve the exact situation were discussing: someone who had both guns and drugs, even if they never actualy used the gun in the drug activity.

These arent statistics about violent criminals. Many of these defendants are people like Weldon Angelos - first-time offenders who possessed firearms during drug activity but never hurt anyone. The law dosent distinguish between someone who fires a gun during a drug deal and someone who has a gun in a closet while selling marijuana. Both face mandatory consecutive time.

The Fix That Abandoned Thousands

Congress eventualy acknowledged the problem. The First Step Act of 2018 changed 924(c) so that the 25-year "subsequent offense" enhancement only applies if you have a prior conviction for 924(c) - a conviction from a previous case, not just a previous count in the same indictment. Under the new law, Weldon Angelos would face 15 years (three 5-year counts), not 55.

Heres the uncomfortable truth: the First Step Act is not retroactive. Thousands of people sentenced under the old stacking rules remain in federal prison serving sentences that Congress has now admitted were wrong. The same conduct that would result in 15 years today resulted in 55 years before 2018. And the people sentenced before 2018 dont get relief.

Some courts have granted compassionate release under 18 USC 3582, recognizing that the disparity between old and new sentences constitutes an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for reduction. But this is discretionary. Inconsistent across districts. Depends on which judge you get. Many people remain imprisoned for decades longer then they would be sentenced today, for the exact same conduct.

The law changed becuase Congress recognized the stacking was unjust. But Congress didnt apply that recognition to people already serving unjust sentences. Weve seen clients at Spodek Law Group who fall into this gap - sentenced before 2018, serving decades more then they would receive today, with limited legal options for relief.

Think about what that means. Two people commit the exact same offense. Same drugs. Same guns. Same everything. One gets arrested in 2017, sentenced in 2018 under the old law. The other gets arrested in 2019, sentenced in 2020 under the new law. The first person serves 55 years. The second serves 15. Same conduct. Different dates. Forty years difference in sentence. Thats not justice - thats a lottery. And the people who lost that lottery remain in prison, watching others go free for doing exactly what they did.

What This Means If Your Facing Gun And Drug Charges

If your under investigation or charged with both gun and drug offenses in federal court, the 924(c) risk is the most important factor in your case. Everything else - the quantity of drugs, your criminal history, wheather you cooperate - becomes secondary to wheather prosecutors can add 924(c) counts.

Heres what you need to understand. Prosecutors will look for any firearm they can connect to the drug activity. Guns at your home, guns in your car, guns you own legally, guns you havent touched in years. The "in furtherance" standard is flexible enough that they can argue almost any firearm was connected to the trafficking. Your job is to make that argument as difficult as possible.

Defense strategies that work:

Challenge the nexus. If the gun was in a completely separate location from the drugs, you have an argument. If the gun was a family heirloom purchased long before any drug activity, you have an argument. If the gun was locked away, unloaded, never accessible during transactions, you have arguments. The goverment has to prove "in furtherance," and that means proving a connection. Attack the connection.

Challenge the underlying offense. You cant be convicted of 924(c) unless your also convicted of the underlying drug trafficking crime. If the drug charge gets dismissed or you're acquitted, the 924(c) charge falls to. Sometimes the best 924(c) defense is attacking the drug case.

Negotiate early. Prosecutors use 924(c) as leverage. That leverage works both ways. If you have information they want, if you can provide cooperation, the 924(c) counts are often the bargaining chip. But you need experienced counsel to navigate this - say the wrong thing in cooperation and you can make things worse.

Understand the circuit. The Second Circuit requires affirmative evidence of nexus. The Fifth Circuit says proximity is often enough. What circuit your case is in dramaticaly affects your odds. Knowing this before you decide on strategy can mean the difference between 5 years and 55.

Consider the timing. Once charges are filed, the leverage shifts dramaticaly to the prosecution. If your under investigation but not yet charged, thats the window were defense counsel can potentialy influence what charges get brought. Once the 924(c) counts are in the indictment, your fighting from a much worse position. Early intervention matters more in gun-and-drug cases then in almost any other type of federal prosecution.

Document everything about the firearm. When was it purchased? Why? Where was it stored? Was it loaded? Was it accessible? Did you ever mention it in connection with drug activity? Every one of these facts becomes evidence in the "in furtherance" analysis. A gun purchased for hunting five years before any drug activity tells a different story then a gun purchased last month.

Todd Spodek has handled federal gun and drug cases across multiple districts. The strategies that work depend on the facts, the circuit, and the prosecutor. But the common thread is this: 924(c) is the most dangerous part of any federal drug case involving firearms. If you dont address it early and aggresively, the stacking can destroy your life.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. Our office is in the Woolworth Building in Manhattan, but we handle federal cases nationwide. The consultation is free. The cost of waiting is decades of your life. If guns and drugs are both part of your case, you need counsel who understands how 924(c) works and how to fight it.

The system isnt fair. A 24-year-old music producer got 55 years for $350 worth of marijuana. The judge called it irrational and imposed it anyway. Thats not a bug in the system - thats how mandatory minimums are designed to work. Your only protection is understanding the danger and fighting back before the stacking begins. The sooner you get help, the more options you have. Wait to long, and the options dissapear one by one untill all thats left is decades of mandatory time.