In an effort to combat the widespread problem of drug crimes, the federal government maintains
strict guidelines that dictate the manner in which these crimes are punished. These sentencing
guidelines classify legal penalties for drug crimes in several ways.
First, the guidelines assign punishments based on the type of drugs involved in a particular case. Next,
the amount of seized drugs is considered when assigning a sentence. Finally, other factors in the
case, such as firearms possession or a previous criminal record, may play a role in the
In general, there are two ways to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. If a drug crimes attorney
can arrange for a defendant to provide substantial information about other criminal activity
to the court, the mandatory minimum sentence may be avoided. If a defendant’s
attorney can show the judge that their client is a nonviolent, first-time
offender, the judge may choose to not impose the mandatory
Federal court sentencing guidelines for drug convictions are distinctly different from the federal mandatory minimum sentences used in many drug cases. One of the most notabledifferences between these two systems is the consideration of mitigating factors by the judge presiding over a drug case. For example, a drug crime conviction that meets the requirements for a mandatory minimum sentence will rarely allow the judge to consider potentially relevant facts about the case. Some of these facts can include the role that the defendant played in the crime and how likely the defendant is to commit similar crimes in the future
The guidelines established by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) allow the judge to consider mitigating factors in the case. These factors mean that the judge may issue a sentence of incarceration between a “range” of appropriate time, such as 12 to 24 months, rather than a mandatory minimum of five years.
Talk to a Federal Drug Lawyer