Federal Criminal Defense Attorney - Law Offices of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr.

Federal Drug Crime Defense Lawyer

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 15:10:32 GMT

Arrested for a Federal Drug Crime? We Can Help.

If you’ve been charged under USCA0003 for Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession of a Controlled Substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841, you’re facing serious federal charges. This statute covers a wide range of illegal drug activities, and penalties can include long prison sentences, hefty fines, and asset forfeiture. Understanding the specifics of this charge is crucial for building a strong defense. Contact the Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr. to learn how we can help protect your rights and fight these charges effectively.

If you or a loved one is facing federal drug charges, you are at risk of severe penalties—including lengthy prison sentences, massive fines, and asset forfeiture. Federal prosecutors pursue drug offenses aggressively under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841–865.
You need a skilled federal criminal defense attorney who knows how to fight back.

At Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr, we have the experience, knowledge, and resources to stand between you and the full force of the federal government.

What Does the Charge Code “Manufacture, Dist, Dispense, Possess Con Sub- Fed USCA0003 021.841” Mean?

If you’ve been charged with Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession of a Controlled Substance (Federal) under the USCA0003 code and 21 U.S.C. § 841, here’s what it means:

Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession: This code covers a broad range of illegal drug activities. It could involve:
- Manufacturing controlled substances (e.g., creating or producing illegal drugs).
- Distributing controlled substances (e.g., selling or giving drugs to others).
- Dispensing controlled substances (e.g., distributing drugs unlawfully).
- Possessing controlled substances with the intent to distribute or sell them.
Controlled Substances: These are drugs classified under federal law as illegal or controlled. It can include narcotics, prescription drugs, or other illicit substances.
Federal Law (21 U.S.C. § 841): Under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the federal government regulates the possession, manufacture, and distribution of controlled substances. If you’re facing charges under this statute, it typically means the alleged crime has a federal aspect, such as crossing state lines, involving federal property, or dealing in large quantities of drugs.

What Are the Penalties for 21 U.S.C. § 841?

The penalties for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 are severe and depend on the type of drug involved and the quantity. Some penalties include:

Drug Type	Penalty
Schedule I or II drugs	5 to life in prison
Marijuana (1,000 kg or more)	10 years to life (mandatory minimums)
Other controlled substances	Up to 40 years in prison

There can also be fines and asset forfeiture, depending on the amount and nature of the drug involved.

What Should You Do if Charged?

If you’re facing a charge under 21 U.S.C. § 841, you need an experienced federal drug defense lawyer. The Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr. is here to defend your rights and explore all possible defenses, including challenging evidence, negotiating plea deals, or seeking case dismissal.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation, and let’s work on defending your future.

Common Federal Drug Crimes We Defend

Drug Trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841): Manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances.
Drug Conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846): Agreement between two or more people to commit a drug crime.
Possession with Intent to Distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)).
Importation/Exportation of Drugs (21 U.S.C. § 952).
Operating a Drug House (21 U.S.C. § 856).
Using a Communication Facility (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)): Using phones or the internet to facilitate drug crimes.

Federal Drug Crime Penalties

Offense	Penalty Range	Notes
Trafficking Schedule I or II Drugs	5 to Life (Years)	Enhanced penalties for serious bodily injury or death
Trafficking Marijuana (1,000kg or more)	10 to Life (Years)	Mandatory minimums apply
Drug Conspiracy	Same as underlying offense	No actual drug possession needed
Drug House Operation	Up to 20 Years	Plus possible civil penalties

See the full statutes at 21 U.S.C. Part D.

Top 5 Defenses to Federal Drug Charges

Illegal Search and Seizure: Evidence obtained without a valid warrant may be suppressed.
Lack of Knowledge or Intent: You must knowingly possess or distribute the substance.
Entrapment: You were improperly induced by law enforcement to commit a crime.
Insufficient Evidence: Challenging the quantity, type, or possession of drugs.
Constitutional Violations: Violations of Miranda rights or due process.

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Drug Charges

What makes a drug case “federal” instead of “state”?

Drug crimes become federal when they involve large quantities, cross state lines, happen on federal property, or involve federal agencies like the DEA.
Learn more: 21 U.S.C. Part D

Can I be charged with conspiracy even if I never touched the drugs?

Yes. Under 21 U.S.C. § 846, simply agreeing to participate in a drug crime—even without handling drugs—can result in the same penalties as if you committed the crime yourself.

What are mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes?

Many federal drug offenses carry mandatory minimum sentences of 5, 10, or even 20 years based on the type and quantity of drug, and prior convictions.
(See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b))

What is a “safety valve” in federal sentencing?

The “safety valve” allows certain non-violent, first-time drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum sentences under specific conditions.
(See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f))

How quickly should I hire a lawyer after being contacted by federal agents?

Immediately. Federal agents rarely contact you unless they already have significant evidence. A lawyer can protect your rights and possibly prevent charges from being filed.

Why Choose Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr?

Over 30 years of experience in federal criminal defense
Aggressive pre-trial motions to exclude illegal evidence
Proven track record of dismissals, acquittals, and favorable plea deals
Available 24/7 for emergency consultations

Your freedom is too important to leave to chance. Let’s fight back together.

Call 813-222-2220 Now for a Free Confidential USCA0003 Consultation

893 Unconstitutional Florida | Guest Author Rosemary Cakmis

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:34:00 GMT

893 Unconstitutional
Attorney Lawyer

Drug Defense Lawyer just received an update from an extremely well-qualified Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Rosemary Cakmis. Questions? Call 813-222-2220.

We are happy to present her as a guest author with her team’s cogent observations in their entirety:

The applicability of Judge Scriven’s decision in Shelton — that the Fla Drug statute is unconstitutional on its face — cannot be overstated — for state and federal cases. I’ve heard from some of you that you have raised this issue before and are excited about raising it again. We are working on ideas for its application in federal cases — which regularly apply enhancements based on prior Florida drug convictions. We appreciate your ideas in this regard. Please keep them coming. Because the opinion is a bit long — 43 pages — some have commented that they haven’t had a chance to read it. Please take the opportunity to read it this weekend because it is chock-full of great tidbits of wisdom. In the meantime, Tracy Dacruz, one of our appellate attorneys, prepared the digest of the opinion below to give you a flavor of the opinion until you can read the whole thing. Mackle Vincent Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et, al. 6:07-cv-00839-MSS-KRS (MDFL) Doc. 38. Case Summary On July 27, 2011, Federal District Judge Mary S. Scriven granted petitioner Mackle Vincent Shelton’s petition for writ of certiorari, finding that § 893.13, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional. Petitioner Shelton, who was convicted of delivery of cocaine, filed a petition for federal habeas relief based upon several grounds including that § 893.13 was facially unconstitutional because it entirely eliminates mens rea as an element of a drug offense and creates a strict liability offense under which he was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. In May 2002, the Florida Legislature expressly eliminated mens rea as an element of a controlled substance offense, stating: (1) The Legislature finds that the cases of Scott v. State, [808 So.2d 166] (Fla. 2002) and Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent. (2) The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the offenses of this chapter. (3) In those instances in which a defendant asserts the affirmative defense described in this section, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in those cases where such an affirmative defense is raised, the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption provided in this subsection. Fla. Stat. § 893.101. Notably, Florida is the only state that expressly and purposefully removed mens rea as an element of a controlled substance offense. As Judge Scriven illustrated, due to the lack of mens rea as an element, a Fed Ex delivery man could be convicted under § 893.13 for unknowingly delivering a package containing a controlled substance. Citing Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619, 620 (1994), the district court noted that a strict liability offense has only been held constitutional if (1) the penalty imposed is slight;(2) a conviction does not result in a substantial stigma, and (3) the statute regulates inherently dangerous or deleterious conduct. Moreover, the district court pointed out, the Supreme Court read Staples and its antecedents as instructing that the presumption of a scienter requirement should apply to each of the statutory elements that criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct. In considering the Staples factors, the district court determined that § 893.13 violates due process. First, the district court found that § 893.13 violates due process because the penalties are too severe. The court noted that no other strict liability statute carrying the penalties of the magnitude of § 893.13 has been upheld under federal law. The court pointed out that a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, as defined in Schedule I, is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years, and for a habitual violent felony offender like Petitioner Shelton, the offense includes a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence, with a 30-year maximum sentence. Second, the court found that § 893.13 violates due process because it creates a substantial social stigma. Coupling the Supreme Court’s own admission that “a felony is as a bad a word as you can give a man,” with the fact that a 15 to 30-year sentence and the inability of felons to vote, sit on a jury, serve in public office, possess a firearm, obtain professional licenses, or federal student loan assistance, a felony conviction under § 893.13 gravely besmirches an individual’s reputation. Furthermore, the court ruled that § 893.13 regulates inherently innocent conduct because it does not require even a minimal showing that the Defendant knew he was delivering any illicit substance as an element of the offense charged. The court explained that there is along tradition of lawful delivery and transfer of containers that might contain substances – carrying luggage on and off public transportation, bags in and out of stores, carrying book bags and purses, transporting boxes via commercial transportation. Under the statute, that conduct is criminal if it turns out that the substance in the container is a controlled substance without regard to the deliverer’s knowledge. As such, the court ruled that § 893.13 cannot survive constitutional scrutiny when considered in relation to the conduct it regulates – delivery of any substance. In conclusion, the court stated that § 893.13 “is not a ‘drug dealer beware’ statute but a ‘citizen beware statute,’” and asserted: Consider the student whose book bag a classmate hastily stashes his drugs to avoid imminent detection. The bag is then given to another for safekeeping. Caught in the act, the hapless victim is guilty based upon the only two elements of the statue: delivery (actual, constructive, or attempted),and the elicit nature of substance. The victim would be faced with the Hobson’s choice of pleading guilty or going to trial where he is presumed guilty because he is in fact guilty of two elements. He must then prove his innocence for lack of knowledge against the permissive presumption the statute imposed that he does in fact have guilty knowledge. Such an outcome is not countenanced under applicable constitutional proscriptions. Questions? Call 813-222-2220 Florida Drug Charge Defense Attorney Lawyer 893 Unconstitutional Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Like this:

Like Loading…