Federal Trafficking Penalties for Schedule II Cocaine
FOR: Schedule II Cocaine — 500-4999 grams mixture Or
Schedule II Cocaine Base – 28-279 grams mixture
First Offense: Not less than 5 yrs. and not more than 40 yrs. If death or serious bodily injury, not less than 20 yrs. or more than life. Fine of not more than $5 million if an individual, $25 million if not an individual.
Second Offense: Not less than 10 yrs. and not more than life.
If death or serious bodily injury, life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $8 million if an individual, $50 million if not an individual.
FOR: Schedule II Cocaine – 5 kilograms or more mixture Or
Schedule II Cocaine Base – 280 grams or more mixture
First Offense: Not less than 10 yrs. and not more than life. If death or serious bodily injury, not less than 20 yrs. or more than life. Fine of not more than $10 million if an individual, $50 million if not an individual.
Second Offense: Not less than 20 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious bodily injury, life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $20 million if an individual, $75 million if not an individual.
2 or More Prior Offenses: Life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $20 million if an individual, $75 million if not an individual.
If you are facing federal drug trafficking charges, contact Attorney Elizabeth Bagert Carpenter. She is a highly skilled New Orleans Drug Crimes Attorney. We are ready to fight for you!
Are You Being Charged or Investigated for a Drug Crime in Federal or Louisiana State Court?
If you have recently been charged with possession with the intent to distribute, you need to enlist the assistance of an experienced New Orleans Drug Crimes Attorney immediately. Our firm has the experience and dedication required to take PWID charges head on. Click here to contact Attorney Elizabeth Bagert Carpenter.
Defending Against “Possession with the Intent to Distribute” Charges
Possession with the intent to distribute, or PWID as it is commonly known, is a serious charge and can result in long prison terms.
Possession with the intent to distribute offenses have three elements:
1.) That the defendant possessed a controlled substance, either actually or constructively;
2.) That the defendant did so with a specific intent to distribute the controlled substance; and
3.) That the defendant did so knowingly and intentionally.
How Can the Government Prove the Intent to Distribute?
Rarely does a PWID charge result from an actual drug transaction. If there is a transaction, then that defendant could be charged with distribution, rather than PWID. However, in cases where a defendant is found in possession of a large amount of controlled substance, prosecutors may try to prove the intent to distribute circumstantially.
Circumstantial evidence is different from direct evidence. Direct evidence tends to point to a suspect directly, such as an eyewitness account, fingerprint evidence, video tape recordings, etc. Circumstantial evidence relies on an inference or assumption. For Example:
Joe Bloe is caught crossing the US/Mexico border with 5 pounds of cocaine. The cocaine is divided into one ounce baggies. Joe Bloe has scales, extra baggies, razor blades, $45,000 cash, and two illegal guns in the car with him.
None of that evidence directly shows that Joe Bloe has the intent to distribute the cocaine. Direct evidence of his intent would be if he told the arresting officer that he intended to sell the drugs. Nevertheless, Joe Bloe may be charged with PWID because all of the other facts surrounding his arrest amount to circumstantial evidence that he had the intent to sell the drugs, rather than use them himself. In other words, a fact finder could reasonably conclude that Joe Bloe had the intent to distribute the drugs after excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
How to Defend Against PWID Charges
PWID cases are won and lost on the circumstantial evidence in the specific facts of the case. A good criminal defense attorney will challenge all evidence that the government tries to use to prove the intent to distribute.
Additionally, an experienced criminal defense attorney will attempt to suppress the physical evidence of the contraband when possible. Without the actual contraband, the government has an incredibly difficult time proving any offense occurred.
If you have been arrested or charged with possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia in Kenner. Contact our firm to speak with a New Orleans Drug Crimes Defense Attorney.
Kenner Municipal Code Sec. 7-191. — Possession of Marijuana
Marijuana is hereby defined as follows:
Marijuana means all parts of the plants of the Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin, but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
Kenner Municipal Code Sec. 7-192. — Drug paraphernalia
Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context clearly otherwise indicates, the term “drug paraphernalia” shall mean and include, but not be limited to:
All equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation on the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, as scheduled in LA-R.S. 40:964.
Prohibited Acts: It is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, any drug paraphernalia; to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this part.
Penalties: Anyone who violates the provision of this section shall subject the offender to a fine not in excess of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment of not more than sixty (60) days, or both.
Model Glue; Use of; Abuse of Toxic Vapors; Unlawful Sales to Minors; Penalties — La.R.S. 14:93.1
It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally smell or inhale the fumes of any type of model glue or toxic vapors for the purpose of causing a condition of or inducing symptoms of intoxication, elation, euphoria, dizziness, excitement, irrational behavior, exhilaration, paralysis, stupefaction or dulling of the senses or nervous system; or for the purpose of, in any manner, changing, distorting or disturbing the audio, visual or mental processes. This Section shall not apply to the inhalation of any anesthesia for medical or dental purposes.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell any type of model glue to a minor for any reason whatsoever.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise transfer possession of any type of model glue to any minor for any purpose whatsoever, unless the minor receiving possession of the model glue is the child or ward of and under the lawful custody of the vendor, donor or transferor of the glue.
Any person violating any provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than ninety days for each such offense or both.
New Orleans Drug Crimes Defense Attorney
Illegal Use of Controlled Dangerous Substances in the Presence of Persons Under Seventeen Years of Age — La.R.S. 14: 91.13
It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of seventeen, while in the presence of any person under the age of seventeen and when there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons, to use, consume, possess, or distribute any controlled dangerous substance in violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act.
Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for more than six months, or both.
This offense is a misdemeanor.
New Orleans Drug Crime Attorney
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is a premier law firm for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. If you are in need of a New Orleans criminal attorney, contact our office today.
Never give a police officer permission to search your vehicle or home!
United States v. Cotton (2013)
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
In February 2011, Marvin Cotton was driving his rental car along Interstate 10 in east Texas when, without changing lanes or slowing his speed as required by Texas law, he passed Lieutenant Tony Viator’s emergency vehicle parked on the side of the road. Having already received a tip from a fellow officer that Cotton might be carrying drugs, Viator conducted a stop and a lengthy detention, running license checks with dispatch and questioning separately both Cotton and his passenger about their itinerary and their reasons for travel. Viator’s suspicion grew when inconsistencies in Cottons’s and his passenger’s stories emerged, so he sought Cotton’s consent to search the rental car for drugs. An audio recording from the camera on Viator’s vehicle captured Viator’s solicitation of Cotton’s permission to search everything in the car. Though Viator first requested permission, he twice more asked whether he could search the car. The parties disputed Cotton’s response to Viator’s initial request, but as to the two reiterated requests, Cotton indisputably responded by limiting his consent to a search of his luggage only. Nevertheless, Viator meticulously searched the entire vehicle, ultimately discovering a small, plastic-wrapped bundle containing crack cocaine concealed in the vehicle door’s inner cavity. Cotton then made incriminating statements while trying to work out a deal with the officers. He filed a motion in the District Court to suppress the drugs and the statements. The motion was denied, and Cotton pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to 121 months in prison. He appealed the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress, having reserved the right to do so in his plea agreement.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of Cotton’s motion to suppress, and vacated his conviction and sentence. The Court concluded that Cotton had limited his consent to the search of his luggage only. Consequently, Viator’s prolonged and more extensive search of Cotton’s entire vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment right, and the drugs uncovered during the unauthorized search of the vehicle, and the incriminating statements made shortly thereafter should have been suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search.
New Orleans Drug Crimes Defense Attorney
Serving Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. John, Baton Rouge, St. Charles, Plaquemines Parishes.
New Bill Would Eradicate Mandatory Minimum Sentences For
Marijuana Possession In Louisiana
Both the Louisiana House and Senate will reconvene for the 2013 Legislative Session in April 8, 2013. As an attorney, I subscribe to email alerts regarding legislative news. This evening I was thrilled to see a proposed bill that would eradicate mandatory minimum sentences for Marijuana Possession.
This bill is House Bill 103, sponsored by state Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans. The proposed bill will lessen penalties for repeat offenders and not subject offenders to Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Law (RS La 15:529.1). This new law would also apply to synthetic cannabinoids.
I am actually opposed to the legalization of synthetic cannabinoids due to the severe health complications associated with its use. Of course, complete legalization of Marijuana would obliterate the demand for synthetic cannabinoids.
As a final thought, I think that Representative Badon is going to have a battle to fight in Baton Rouge over this new bill. The state and local governments as well as substance abuse clinics love the money that they can extort out of people who are found guilty of Marijuana Possession.
The following is a chart demonstrating the proposed changes to the law:
If you or a loved one has been charged with a Marijuana Offense in New Orleans area. Contact a New Orleans Drug Crime Attorney – Elizabeth B. Carpenter. We offer discounted fee for Marijuana Offenses!
New Orleans Drug Crime Attorney
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is a premier law firm for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. If you are in need of a New Orleans drug crime attorney, contact our office today.
Synthetic Drug 25I: A New Schedule I Drug
State health officials, top lawmakers and law enforcement personnel announce steps they have taken to ban a dangerous new drug, 25i, making it illegal in Louisiana.
This relatively new drug, 25i, also called Smiles or N-Bomb, has been added to the state’s Controlled Dangerous Substance Act, effective immediately. It is classified as a Controlled Dangerous Substance — Schedule I.
Simple Possession of 25I will carry a sentence of 4 to 10 years.
Manufacturing and Distribution of 25I will carry a sentence of 5 to 50 years.
Lawmakers began eyeing criminalizing the drug after an Arkansas man died last week in New Orleans after reportedly overdosing on 25i at a festival.
At least five people have died nationwide this year after taking 25i, including the man who died in Louisiana, according to officials. Other deaths reportedly occurred in Minnesota, North Dakota, California and North Carolina. Today, Louisiana becomes the second state, along with Virginia, to make 25i illegal.
Louisiana revised statute 40:962, gives State Health Officials authority to add new compounds as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act by rule if the substance has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in the U.S., and if there is no accepted safety use of the substance under medical supervision.
Officials said the synthetic drug is commonly manufactured in China and India, and is being sold in powder and liquid form online, which is how people access it in the United States.
NEW ORLEANS MARIJUANA DEFENSE ATTORNEY
If you have been arrested for a Marijuana Offense in Louisiana, Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. Our fees are always discounted for Marijuana Offenses.
Serving Clients in Orleans Parish, St. Tammany Parish, St. John Parish, St. James Parish, St. Bernard Parish, St. Charles Parish, Assumption Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Terrebonne Parish, Plaquemines Parish and Jefferson Parish.
Appeals Court Considers Marijuana Reclassification
More than 10 years after it was initially filed, the latest petition to remove marijuana from Schedule Iof the Controlled Substances Act is finally giving the herb its day in court. The current classification lumps cannabis in with drugs such as heroin, LSD and mescaline.
The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this week in the case of Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, providing an opening for medical marijuana reform advocates to challenge the conventional law enforcement contention that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and is “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
Joe Elford, Chief Counsel for Americans for Safe Access, described an endless cycle orchestrated by federal drug enforcers in an effective effort to keep marijuana on Schedule I indefinitely. He argued that the Department of Health and Human Services is actively stifling much-needed research into marijuana’s medical benefits, citing the Schedule I classification as the basis for controlling research. The DEA completes the cycle by arguing that marijuana can’t be removed from Schedule I because there isn’t enough available research. This strategy has for years put a stranglehold on any opportunity for federally-accepted research into the medical marijuana benefits found in other studies.
“They’ve created a catch-22 so that they never have to be responsible for moving marijuana off of Schedule I,” said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access. “They’re placing politics before science.”
DEA attorney Lena Watkins argued that the federal government does allow for research into the medical efficacy of marijuana, and that there have been 15 such studies that have met the government’s exacting standards. When asked by the three-judge panel why those studies have not convinced the DEA that marijuana has a legitimate medical use, Watkins said, “we don’t have the final results yet.”
Watkins reminded the court that neither state legislatures nor voters are qualified to judge the accepted medical use of marijuana, and stressed that “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America.”
“The DEA often argues that just by the fact that marijuana is used by so many in the United States, that it’s tantamount to having high potential for abuse,” Hermes said. “That’s a ludicrous standard, and it’s not consistent with the way it’s used by the FDA.”
Key Legal Hurdle
The issue that tripped up two prior appeals of marijuana’s classification may be the downfall of this effort as well: A plaintiff must prove that he’s been harmed in order to have legal standing to sue. Past attempts to reschedule the drug failed because the plaintiffs weren’t able to prove this to the court’s satisfaction.
Before adjourning, the appeals court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing to make their case for standing, indicating it could be a fatal stumbling block yet again.
“They’re taking the standing issue very seriously,” Hermes said.
The plaintiff in this case is Michael Krawitz, a disabled United States Air Force veteran. Krawitz uses medical marijuana in combination with more conventional medications to alleviate pain resulting from a military service injury. But Krawitz is being denied medical services by the Department of Veterans Affairs because he’s a medical marijuana patient.
Krawitz said marijuana’s Schedule I classification has “caused my fellow patients to be imprisoned, be denied work, be denied housing, be denied the right to a firearm, and be removed from transplant lists.”
“Despite being an Oregon card-holding medical marijuana patient, I’ve had to access medical treatment for my pain outside the VA,” Krawitz said, adding that “this is done openly as punishment to stop me from using cannabis.”
A Curious Question
Since the appeal of this petition was granted, medical marijuana advocates have argued that regardless of the outcome, the opportunity to bring evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits before a court is a victory in itself.
They may need to look for victories where they can, as Judge Merrick Garland asked one question that suggested an ominous outcome.
“Don’t we have to defer to the agency?” he asked, referring to the DEA. “We’re not scientists. They are.”
Far from being scientists, the DEA is a federal law enforcement agency operating within the Department of Justice.
Do you think that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I? How do you think it should be classified? Let us know in the comments section below.
Attorney Elizabeth B Carpenter has been a supporter of reforming Marijuana Laws for many years. Currently, Louisiana has some of the harshest marijuana laws in the country, and it has the fifth-highest marijuana arrest rate in the United States. Additionally, Louisiana has never had a law that effectively protects medical marijuana patients from arrest. In the last several sessions, Louisiana legislators have been too busy trying to increase marijuana penalties and refusing to introduce compassionate medical marijuana legislation.
Louisianans must form a united front and remain determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana prohibition and accomplish decriminalization, no matter how long it takes to succeed.
New Orleans Drug Possession Distribution Attorney
Defending those accused of Drug Crimes in Jefferson, St. John, St. Bernard, Orleans, St. Tammany, Plaquemines St. James, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne and St. Charles Parishes!!!
Distribution or Possession of Drugs Listed in Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance – La. R.S. 40:969
See Schedule I
See Schedule II
See Schedule III
See Schedule V
It is unlawful:
To produce, manufacture, possess with intent to producea controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule V;
These crimes are felonies.
Penalties — Manufacturing, Distributing or Possessing with Intent to Distribute a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance.
Schedule V shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not more than five years; and, in addition, may be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars
Possession a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance
It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule IV unless such substance was obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription. Any person who violates this Subsection shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than 5 years and, in addition, may be required to pay a fine of not more than $5,000.00
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. – Louisiana Drug Crimes Attorney