Federal trafficking charges turn on possession with intent to distribute, actual distribution, or conspiracy. Prosecutors lean on controlled‑buy operations, wiretaps, lab reports, and cooperator testimony. We probe chain‑of‑custody breaks, contamination risks, and whether “intent to distribute” is inferred from quantity, packaging, or financial records rather than direct proof.

Sentencing hinges on drug type and weight, role in the offense, criminal history, and safety‑valve eligibility. We evaluate mitigating role, acceptance of responsibility, and variance arguments grounded in personal history, addiction treatment, or over‑stated purity assumptions. Where appropriate, we pursue substantial‑assistance reductions and craft individualized mitigation packets with letters, program completion records, and expert reports.

At every stage, we emphasize pretrial motion practice—suppression of illegally obtained evidence, challenges to wiretap necessity, and reliability hearings for lab methods. A strong pretrial record improves leverage in plea discussions and preserves issues for appeal.

Federal trafficking under 21 U.S.C. §841 carries stiff mandatory sentences starting at 5 years for Schedule I/II substances. Armour Legal evaluates lab-testing protocols, chain-of-custody reports, and wiretap affidavits to suppress unreliable evidence and identify statutory “safety-valve” eligibility for reduced sentencing.

We also leverage “substantial assistance” motions (Rule 35(b)) and sentencing-guideline departures to secure lower penalties. From initial arrest through supervised release, our team works closely with you and forensic experts to craft mitigation packages—presenting personal history, rehabilitation efforts, and community-based alternatives in court.

We treat federal narcotics cases as forensics plus procedure. Our approach scrutinizes stops and searches, controlled‑buy protocols, lab accuracy, and any wiretap “necessity” showing. We pursue suppression where officers cut corners, and we demand reliability hearings when the government leans on shaky cooperators. Every step is documented to create leverage in plea talks and preserve issues for appeal.

On sentencing, we engineer outcomes: arguing mitigating role, safety‑valve eligibility, and departures or variances tied to treatment progress, work history, and family support. We assemble mitigation packets—program certificates, expert letters, employer statements—and press for fair drug‑weight attribution, realistic purity assumptions, and proper grouping. The result is a plan that begins before indictment and continues past sentencing, focused on minimizing custody and collateral damage.