Mr. Galluzzo worked with a social worker to describe the client’s extremely difficult upbringing, which included parental abuse, poverty, homelessness, the foster care system, and drug abuse as a pre-teen. Mr. Galluzzo convinced the judge that pursuant to the recent Second Circuit decision in US v. Gibson, the client was not a Career Offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines despite his two prior convictions for NY Penal Law Section 220.39, resulting in his classification as a Criminal History Category IV instead of VI. He also convincingly described the overdose as a terrible accident and expressed his client’s remorse to the judge.

Ultimately, the Court granted a significant downward variance and gave him a sentence equal to roughly half that recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, 120 months (10 years). The client was pleased with the result and felt that his voice had been heard. The case was US v. Huertero, 20-cr-580 (ER) before Judge Ramos.

If you or a loved one are facing federal narcotics charges resulting in an overdose, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. A former federal prosecutor, he has experienced litigating against government prosecutors attempting to prove that defendants are responsible for fatal overdoses, and has effectively cross-examined scientific expert witnesses (doctors, toxicologists, pathologists, etc.) on the subject. He also knows how to effectively present requests for merciful treatment from sentencing judges. Give him a call to schedule a consultation.

Mr. Galluzzo practices primarily in the New York City area, as well as the federal courts of Connecticut, White Plains (NY), and New Jersey. However, he is also able to defend federal criminal cases in other jurisdictions under certain circumstances.

If you or a loved one receives a grand jury subpoena, you need to contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. This subpoena cannot be ignored, but can carry substantial risks for the person who receives it. In some cases, the person receiving the subpoena may be able to assert the Fifth Amendment. In other cases, it may be possible to negotiate immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. In other cases, it may be possible to simply answer investigators’ questions without doing so under oath and before a grand jury. In that latter case, it is critical to only speak with an attorney’s assistance and after entering into a proffer agreement. Mr. Galluzzo has represented dozens of witnesses and cooperating witnesses over the years, and understands hos prosecutors think and build cases (as he himself is a former prosecutor). If you have received a grand jury subpoena from a prosecutor in the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, you should strongly consider contacting him immediately.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of federal defendants plead guilty. It is important for federal defense attorneys to be skillful in negotiating favorable plea bargains. But even more important for a federal defense attorney is the ability to craft persuasive sentencing arguments. These can make a real difference for federal defendants – sometimes it is the difference between a long sentence and a short sentence, or a sentence of probation instead of a prison sentence.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced federal criminal defense attorney. If you or a loved one have been charged with a federal crime, you should strongly consider retaining him. His significant experience advocating for defendants in federal court helps him obtain excellent results for his clients.

It would appear from the complaint that Mr. Michel has an obvious defense that he did not intend to defraud anyone, and that he fully intended to give his customers their NFTs eventually. He may have received the funds and then encountered difficulty in acquiring the NFTs for his customers due to volatile market conditions or other issues.

It is always difficult to estimate sentencing exposure at this stage of a criminal case, but preliminary estimates might suggest the following for Mr. Michel:

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, the base offense level for a wire fraud is usually 6.

For cases involving the alleged theft of over $1.5 million dollars, the sentencing guidelines require that 16 levels be added, resulted in an offense level of 22.

Where there are more than 10 victims of a fraud scheme (or the scheme involves mass-marketing), the guidelines require an additional two offense levels, resulting in a level 24. USSG 2B1.1(b)(2).

There might be an additional two levels relating to the fact that the fraud occurred in a foreign jurisdiction (USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)), but that is unclear.

So, if Mr. Michel is convicted at trial, assuming he has no criminal history (i.e. Criminal History Category I), his sentencing guidelines range would be 51-63 months, or about 4-5 years in prison. Judges use a Sentencing Table promulgated by the Sentencing Commission – see here.

If he pleaded guilty prior to trial, Mr. Michel would likely receive a reduction of 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an offense level of 21 and a range of 37-46 months (3-4 years).

However, there is no mandatory minimum sentence in this case, meaning that he could theoretically be convicted and receive a sentence of time served followed by supervised release.

Mr. Michel would likely be ordered to pay restitution to his victims equal to the amount of their losses, and, if he is not a citizen of the United States, then he would be almost certainly deported following his prison sentence and unable to ever return to the United States (inadmissible).

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He specializes in the defense of federal criminal cases in New York City. He also speaks fluent French and has been knighted by the nation of France for his zealous defense of French nationals accused of crimes in the United States and his service to the French Consulate of New York City.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of a federal crime involving wire fraud charges, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He has achieved excellent results for many clients accused of these crimes in New York City federal courts and may be able to assist you as well.

The entire incident was captured on surveillance tape from nearby buildings, and a witness identified our client as the shooter. Initially, the prosecutors sought a sentence near the maximum, between 8 and 10 years in prison. After a lengthy period of negotiation, the client’s attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, secured a plea agreement for the client with a sentencing range of between 33-41 months under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, following the client’s guilty plea, it was up to the federal judge to decide his ultimate sentence (the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory but not mandatory).

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Mr. Galluzzo submitted a lengthy memorandum detailing the client’s difficult upbring, his long period of productive employment, his supportive family network, his remorse for the crime, and the terrible conditions the client had endured at MDC Brooklyn during the pendency of the case. The federal judge (Judge Donnelly) was thus persuaded to give our client a downward variance far below the sentencing Guidelines, in sentencing him to 24 months in prison. Given the time that he has already spent in custody, that amounts to a sentence only slightly longer than time served. The client was thrilled was this result and with the prospect of returning home to his wife and son soon.

The case caption is United States v. R.P., 20-cr-511(AMD) in the Eastern District of New York.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a federal firearm crime like 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g), you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo has extensive experience defending these sorts of cases and is well known for his passionate advocacy. Mr. Galluzzo operates primarily in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey federal courts, but has also represented clients in other federal courts across the country.

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) makes it a federal crime punishable between 5 and 20 years to “[m]aliciously damage[] or destroy[], or attempt to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” (The penalties are higher when public safety officers sustain injuries).

According to the complaint (as well as video footage available on the Internet) – Ms. Shader allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail (a bottle of flammable beer containing a burning rag or cloth) through the window of a police vehicle while it was occupied by four police officers. Thankfully, no police officers were injured. According to the publicly-available complaint filed against her, Ms. Shader has also admitted to the conduct. In addition, it is alleged that just a few hours later, the two aforementioned lawyers threw similar Molotov cocktails into an empty NYPD vehicle in Brooklyn.

Defending against these cases is going to be challenging for their attorneys. Ms. Shader probably has no defense whatsoever, assuming that her statement was voluntarily given to the police. As much as Mr. Mattis, an African-American attorney, may have a valid grievance about police brutality in America, there is no First Amendment or protest exception to this criminal statute. These attorneys could go to trial and attempt to persuade juries to “nullify” their cases, meaning find them not guilty where the evidence clearly proves their guilt. The Eastern District of New York is an extremely diverse jury pool – almost certainly the most diverse jury pool in the U.S. – but it seems unlikely that a jury of 12 would unanimously agree to forgive this sort of conduct that jeopardizes lives and safety.

Defense attorneys are going to have to fight hard to try to persuade federal prosecutors to charge their clients differently, in order to avoid stiff jail sentences. Federal prosecutors rarely if ever make deals for “lesser included offenses,” but there are some charges that could be potentially substituted for 18 U.S.C 844(i) that do not have the same penalties, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 33, 18 U.S.C. § 231, 18 U.S.C. §2232. Perhaps they could be permitted to plead guilty to one of these charges in satisfaction of the primary charge. Otherwise, their attorneys might try to have the case charged in state court, as well, with the hope that their clients could plead guilty to an offense with a lesser penalty in state court with the federal court being dismissed as covered by those state-court pleas. This is admittedly something of a long shot but perhaps worth considering under the circumstances.

Ultimately, this case is most likely going to be about demonstrating remorse and good character to the prosecutors in the hopes of earning some mercy or leniency from them. A “proffer” could be necessary to do so. Otherwise, they’ll likely be forced to accept a plea with a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan state court prosecutor and experienced federal court defense attorney on the CJA panels for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. If you or a loved one have been arrested or charged with a federal crime, you should strongly consider contacting him immediately.

The statute reads as follows (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)):

• (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

To brandish a weapon means to show the weapon to someone else during the commission of the crime, and to discharge the weapon obviously means to shoot it. There are additional penalties for the use of a rifle, shotgun, silencer, machine gun or assault weapon

Typical crimes of violence alleged in 924(c) indictments include homicides and attempted homicides, robberies, burglaries, assaults, and menacing.

Sometimes in these cases, a group of people are indicted for possessing a firearm that was only physically possessed by one of the members of the criminal conspiracy. Technically, all of the members of the drug trafficking conspiracy or violent crime conspiracy could be charged with the possession of the firearm under 924(c) if they were aware that their co-conspirator possessed the weapon. This is a common issue that arises at trial or in plea negotiations. A savvy defense attorney has to do a careful review of the discovery materials to determine whether there is any wiretap evidence, for example, that suggests that a particular client knew about the weapon at issue.

Non-citizens charged with this crime obviously face deportation as a possible consequence. Those 924(c) defendants with a significant violent or drug-related criminal history could also be categorized as career offenders and be subject to potentially enormous penalties and prison sentences.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a violation of 18 USC § 924(c), you should strongly consider contacting The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Mr. Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended man individuals charged with this crime. Give him a call for a free case evaluation and a fair quote for his services.

The most common two murder charges at the federal level are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and § 1117. The former describes federal murder as being the unlawful and killing of another human being with “malice aforethought.” Spur-of-the-moment killings thus might be charged as manslaughter instead, though “malice aforethought” does not require more than a moment’s reflection on the part of the actor. The charge is broken down into two degrees: first and second degree murder.

First degree murder involves those intentional killings perpetrated by “poison, lying in wait, any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed…” First degree murder is punishable by death or life in prison.

All other murders with malice aforethought are considered murder in the second degree, which carries either a life sentence or “any term of years” in prison.

18 USC § 1117 applies to conspiracies to commit murder. Specifically, “if two or more persons conspire to violate §1111… and one or more such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or life.”

Thus, the mere agreement to commit a murder, plus some action in furtherance of the plot, can land both parties in prison for life. Frequency, these cases are brought when one of the conspirators tells law enforcement, or when the discussion is overheard on a law enforcement wiretap. “Overt acts” can be as simple as looking for the intended target or acquiring a weapon to use.

Keep in mind however that multiple people can be charged with murder via §1111 by assisting the actual killer. Providing knowing and intentional assistance to someone who is about to commit a federal murder can get one arrested and convicted of the same crime. A good defense attorney may be able to cast doubt on the co-conspirator’s role in a §1111 murder, however.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a federal homicide charge, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney representing you. Matthew Galluzzo has successfully defended numerous individuals accused of homicide at the state and federal level, and he is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney who was selected to be on the Criminal Justice Act panels for both of the federal courts in New York City (the Southern and Eastern District of New York). Give him a call to schedule a case evaluation and you will receive a fair quote for his services.

The crime of wire fraud occurs when someone voluntarily and intentionally uses an interstate communications device (such as a telephone) as a part of any scheme to defraud another of property, or anything else of value.

The main criminal statutes that apply to wire fraud are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Those statues refer to fraud by wire, radio, or television.

Section 1343 defines as guilty of wire fraud: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster ….. or emergency or affects a financial institution.”

Therefore, to be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a defendant must have intentionally and voluntarily used a communication device that sends information over state lines as part of a scheme to defraud another out of money or other valuables. It can involve the use of a landline telephone, cell phone, computer, tablet, or another electronic device.

U.S.C. 1349 applies to attempts to commit wire fraud. Indeed, “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

A person could be charged with wire fraud if the following four elements of the crime are established: (i) the person voluntarily or intentionally participated in or devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or other valuables; (ii) the person did so with the intent to defraud the person. Moreover (iii) It was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, (iv) in the scheme.

The wire fraud statute does not make an explicit reference to materiality. Yet materiality is an element of the offense, because at the time of the statutes’ enactment, the word “defraud” was understood to “require a misrepresentation or concealment of [a] material fact.” Thus, other than in an honest services context, a “scheme to defraud” for mail or wire fraud purposes must involve a material misrepresentation of some kind. material if it is capable of influencing the intended victim.”

Wire fraud can involve many different schemes to defraud a person using electronic communications such as emails, webpages, and social media. The federal wire fraud statute specifically mentions wire, radio, and television communications, but it also includes many fraud offenses involving computers and the internet. The information transmitted can be any writes, signs, signals, pictures or sounds used in the scheme to defraud. In order for wire fraud to take place, the person must voluntarily and knowingly make misrepresentations of facts with the intent to defraud someone of money or property.

Fraudsters use various methods to get personal credentials and passwords including:

• Malware: Malware (short for “malicious software”) is designed to gain access, damage or disrupt a computer without the knowledge of the owner.
• Phishing: Phishing is a scam typically carried out through unsolicited email and/or websites that pose as legitimate sites and lure unsuspecting victims to provide personal and financial information.
• Vishing and Smishing: Thieves contact bank or credit union customers via live or automated phone calls (known as vishing attacks) or via text messages sent to cell phones (smishing attacks) that may warn of a security breach so as to obtain account information, PIN numbers and other account information they need to gain access to the account.
• Accessing Email Accounts: Hackers gain illicit access to an email account or email correspondence through spam, computer virus, and phishing.

For example, creating a webpage to ask for donations for a charity or a personal tragedy that is fraudulent could be prosecuted as a wire fraud. Moreover, stealing bank and other financial information to transfer money out of a person’s bank and other financial accounts, to make charges on his credit cards, or to take out credit cards in his name, or sending a mass email to a person’s email contacts with a tragic story as to why the person needs money immediately are other examples of wire fraud.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. Since November 1, 1987, federal judges have used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the sentence of a guilty defendant. A judge will look at the “base offense level” and then adjust the sentence based on the specific characteristics of the crime. With all fraud offenses, the base offense level is six. However, other factors will then influence that number, including, for example, the dollar amount stolen, how much planning went into the crime and the victims that were targeted.

Thus, for example, a wire fraud scheme that involved the theft of $300,000 through an intricate scheme to take advantage of the elderly will score higher than a wire fraud scheme that an individual planned in order to cheat their employer out of $1,000.

Other factors that will influence the final sentencing “score” include the defendant’s criminal history, whether or not the defendant tried to impede the investigation, and whether the defendant willingly helped investigators catch other people involved in the crime.

Usually, a person convicted of wire fraud faces significant potential penalties. A single act of wire fraud can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison. However, if the wire fraud scheme affects a financial institution or is connected to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency, the potential penalties are fines of up to $1,000,000 and up to 30 years in prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a federal wire fraud charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Money laundering charges typically go hand-in-hand with other related criminal charges brought by law enforcement. Individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, loansharking, racketeering, or Medicare fraud, for example, usually conduct their business in cash for understandable reasons. The problem that these people oftentimes face, however, is that they cannot use their criminal proceeds to purchase things that they want to buy, like real estate for example. This is when money laundering becomes relevant.

Typically, money laundering charges arise when a person with a quantity of illegally-derived cash wants to put the money into a bank account or buy assets with it. A criminal might seek to launder his or her own illegal money by depositing it into a bank account or wiring it to another account. He or she might also enlist the assistance of a professional launderer who takes a percentage of the laundered funds in exchange for depositing them into an account or investing them in some business or asset. The criminal with cash may also manipulate an unwitting novice into laundering it for them, so as to escape responsibility in the event the laundering is discovered.

The main criminal statute that applies to money laundering is 18 U.S.C. 1956. Section 1956(a) defines three types of criminal conduct: domestic money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(1)); international money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(2)); and undercover “sting” money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(3)). These charges can be brought as attempts and there are also charges relating to conspiracies to commit money laundering without actual money laundering ever happening (§1956(h)).

To be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), a defendant must conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved in the financial transaction represents the proceeds of some unlawful activity, with one of the four specific intents discussed below, and the property must in fact be derived from a specified unlawful activity.

The actual source of the funds must be one of the specified forms of criminal activity identified by the statute, in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), or those incorporated by reference from the RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)). Section 1956(c)(7)(B) includes in the list of specified unlawful activity certain offenses against a foreign nation. Thus, proceeds of certain crimes committed in another country may constitute proceeds of a specified unlawful activity for purposes of the money laundering statutes.

To prove a violation of § 1956(a)(1), the prosecutor must prove, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the defendant knew that the property involved was the proceeds of any felony under State, Federal or foreign law. The prosecutor need not show that the defendant knew the specific crime from which the proceeds were derived; the prosecutor must prove only that the defendant knew that the property was illegally derived in some way. See § 1956(c)(1).

The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant initiated or concluded, or participated in initiating or concluding, a financial transaction. A “transaction” is defined in § 1956(c)(3) as a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution, a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, loan, exchange of currency, extension of credit, purchase or sale safe-deposit box, or any other payment, transfer or delivery by, through or to a financial institution.

A “financial transaction” is defined in § 1956(c)(4) as a transaction which affects interstate or foreign commerce and: (1) involves the movement of funds by wire or by other means; (2) involves the use of a monetary instrument; or (3) involves the transfer of title to real property, a vehicle, a vessel or an aircraft; or (4) involves the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

In conducting the financial transaction, the defendant must have acted with one of the following four specific intents:

1. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i): intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii): intent to engage in tax evasion or tax fraud;§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i): knowledge that the transaction was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of proceeds of the specified unlawful activity; or§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii): knowledge that the transaction was designed to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law [e.g., in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 (Currency Transaction Reports) or 5316 (Currency and Monetary Instruments Reports), or 26 U.S.C. § 6050I (Internal Revenue Service Form 8300)].

Prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) arise when monetary instruments or funds are transported, transmitted or transferred internationally, and the defendant acted with one of the requisite criminal intents (i.e., promoting, concealing, or avoiding reporting requirements). The intent to engage in tax violations is not included in § 1956(a)(2).

If the transportation, transmission or transfer was conducted with the intent to conceal the proceeds of specified unlawful activity or to avoid a reporting requirement, the prosecutor must show that the defendant knew the monetary instrument or funds represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity. However, if the transportation, transmission or transfer is conducted with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, the prosecutor need not show that the funds or monetary instruments were actually derived from any criminal activity.

The transportation, transmission or transfer must cross the border — either originating or terminating in the United States. That term includes all means of transporting funds or monetary instruments, including wire or electronic funds transfers, and the transfer of currency, checks, money orders, bearer securities and negotiable instruments.

Section 1956(a)(3) relates to undercover operations where the financial transaction involves property represented to be proceeds of specified unlawful activity. The proceeds in § 1956(a)(3) cases are not actually derived from a real crime; they are undercover funds supplied by the Government.

Violations of § 1956 have a maximum potential twenty year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine or twice the amount involved in the transaction, whichever is greater. As is the case with all federal crimes, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines significantly influence the ultimate sentence for a person convicted of this crime. Notably, the penalties are generally higher depending on the amount of money laundered, and can be especially high for those individuals who laundered money that they themselves earned through criminal conduct.

If you or a loved one have been accused of money laundering by federal authorities, contact the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Federal cases involving narcotics charges typically are the result of long-term investigations by the FBI, the DEA, Homeland Security, or a joint task force involving local police like the NYPD. As such, there are oftentimes wiretaps, surveillance tapes, confidential informants, and search warrants. An effective defense requires an attorney who can review the evidence and the law enforcement processes to determine whether any constitutional rights were violated.

Many unfortunate individuals never actually possessed or distributed narcotics but nonetheless find themselves charged in federal court on account of the conspiracy laws encapsulated in 21 USC 846. That statute explains: “Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” Basically, this means that a person who plays any knowing role whatsoever in another person’s illegal business is criminally liable for the entirety of that conduct. For example, a person who introduces two people for the purpose of a drug transaction can be expected to be charged as an equal to whatever drug transaction ultimately occurred. A person who acts as a lookout during a drug transaction could be treated as equally culpable to the seller of the narcotics. A person who simply rents an apartment to someone whom he knows is dealing drugs from the apartment could be guilty of “conspiring” to assist the dealer. These are just a few examples of people who could be charged in ways that seem unfair in light of their relatively modest role in the crime. We have however defended many girlfriends of drug dealers and casual acquaintances of true criminals who have found themselves knee-deep in serious federal cases after having had only fleeting or tangential involvement in the cases. But this is the reality of federal conspiracy law.

In conclusion, if you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with violating the federal criminal drug laws – such as 21 USC 841 or 21 USC 846 – you should strongly consider retaining the services of the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team of former Manhattan prosecutors has successfully defended numerous individuals accused of federal crimes relating to the possession and trafficking of cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and methamphetamine, GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid), ecstasy (MDMA), fentanyl, and prescription drugs like oxycontin, oxycodone, and other opiods. Notably, their attorneys have particular experience and expertise in defending foreign citizens in these matters, as they are fluent in French and Spanish and have long relationships with the New York-area consulates of several foreign nations (including France, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Australia, among others). They also have experience defending individuals accused of operating illegally on the Dark Web. Their results involve numerous dismissals and favorable sentences far below those normally called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. Give them a call to discuss your federal New York district court case. They operate primarily in the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of New York federal courts.

The sentencing range for the original criminal charges under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines was 12-18 months (Base Offense Level of 13 with a two level increase for obstructing justice offset by a possible two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility following a guilty plea). Of course, the client also now faced the possibility of additional criminal charges and penalties for acting as a fugitive and failing to appear in court. The prosecution initially submitted a proposed plea agreement whereby the client would receive a sentence of between 12-18 months in prison.

However, the attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo presented to the federal prosecutor considerable mitigating evidence of our client’s life story and family, as well as circumstances surrounding his original crimes. Ultimately, the prosecutors agreed to allow the client to plead guilty to the second count of the original indictment and avoid additional charges for acting as a fugitive. The second count of the indictment carried a 0-6 month Guidelines sentence, representing a considerable savings on the original 12-18. Then, we were able to persuade the judge to schedule an expedited sentencing hearing and ultimately to sentence our client to time served. Thus, instead of receiving a sentence of between 12-18, as it originally appeared our client would, our client received a sentence of less than four months. Obviously, the client is quite happy with the result.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of federal criminal law in Brooklyn or Queens (i.e. the Eastern District of New York), you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team of former prosecutors has considerable experience representing individuals charged with a wide variety of crimes in that courthouse, and may be able to help you as well.