Federal Controlled Substances: Civil Penalties and Other Crimes

Image related with this article: Federal Controlled Substances: Civil Penalties and Other Crimes
Although a majority of the severe drug crimes are codified in 21 U.S.C. §841, additional offenses are listed in 21 U.S.C. §842 and §843. §842, titled “Prohibited acts B,” covers a variety of offenses related to distribution and manufacture of controlled substances.

Although a majority of the severe drug crimes are codified in 21 U.S.C. §841, additional offenses are listed in 21 U.S.C. §842 and §843. §842, titled “Prohibited acts B,” covers a variety of offenses related to distribution and manufacture of controlled substances. These substances are, except as specifically provided, not classified as crimes, and are punishable by civil penalties. The section prohibits distribution of controlled prescription drugs under §829, as well as the distribution of improperly labeled or unlabeled drugs under §825. In the interest of preventing the manufacture of illegal controlled substances, the statute also restricts the sale of laboratory supply to a person who uses or attempts to use the supply to manufacture a controlled substance.

Further, the statute addresses registrants, limiting their ability to distribute to the particular controlled substances authorized by the registration. Regulated transactions are predominantly governed by 21 U.S.C. §830, although failure to comply with provisions is made unlawful under §842. Registrants are required to maintain up-to-date records in compliance with federal requirements and must allow for inspection. Regulated individuals are, under §830(a)(3), responsible for identifying any party involved in a regulated transaction. §842 also prohibits negligent failure to properly report or self-certify as provided under §830.

§842(b) is directed towards the unauthorized manufacture of certain substances. Under the subsection, a registrant is prohibited from manufacturing a schedule I or schedule II controlled substance, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, assuming the manufacture is not expressly authorized by the registration.

Most §842 violations are subject to a civil penalty of $25,000 or less. Unlawful actions related to negligent recordkeeping, however, are capped at $10,000, unless the violation involves a failure to review recent information on part of a registered manufacture or distributor of opioids. When the registrant is involved in the manufacture or distribution of opioids, the penalty may reach up to $100,000. The most severe civil penalties are associated with false labeling of anabolic steroids and suspicious reporting of opioids by a registered manufacturer or distributor of opioids, both of which are subject to up to $500,000 in fines per violation for importers, exporters, manufacturers, and distributors. At the retail level, the fine caps at $1000 per violation.

When a registrant knowingly violates the requirements of their registration, criminal penalties can apply, with defendants facing up to one year in prison. If the violation of §842 is committed after one or more prior convictions for drug-related crimes, the person may be sentenced to up to 2 years’ imprisonment.

21 U.S.C. §843, titled “Prohibited acts C,” attaches civil and criminal penalties to additional unlawful acts. The statute is primarily directed at nine different unlawful acts: a registrant distributing a schedule I or II controlled substance in the course of legitimate business; use of a fictional, revoked, expired, or otherwise fraudulent registration number in the course of manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance; acquiring a controlled substance through misrepresentation or fraud; using false material information in any application, report, or document, or presenting false identification when receiving a chemical; reproducing the likeness of any drug or container as to render the drug a counterfeit; possessing certain equipment which could potentially be used to manufacture a controlled substance or listed chemical; manufacturing that same equipment; to create a chemical mixture to evade §830 requirements; or to distribute, import, or export a list I chemical without proper registration. §843 additionally prohibits advertisement to buy or sell a schedule I controlled substance. The prohibition extends to both printed materials, such as newspapers, magazines, handbills, or other publications, as well as digital advertisements via the Internet.

Most §843 violations are punishable by up to 4 years in prison, which rises to 8 years if the offender has a prior conviction for a drug-related felony. If the offense involves the manufacture of methamphetamine, the maximum sentence increases to 10 years’ imprisonment, which doubles if the offender has committed other controlled substance felonies. Additionally, registrants convicted of §843 violations may be enjoined from engaging in controlled substance or listed chemical transactions for up to 10 years. Similar to §842, §843 also allows the Attorney General to pursue civil action for violations.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.

articles

latest news & insights

1 / 9
David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

In a case that made its way to the highest level of the state court system, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal beginning in Walker County. This case, Ex parte David Eugene Files, centers around a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. Files’ petition was dismissed by the Walker circuit court, with the dismissal being affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

read articles
Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

In a decision that affirms the admissibility and sufficiency of several distinct types of evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently presided over an appeal that found its roots in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

read articles
Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

How courts divide real property in a divorce. Learn more from Ingram Law, LLC.

read articles
Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

In a case that demonstrates the limits of alimony awards, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry.

read articles
Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

You are driving home late between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. You get pulled over because the police officer states you are driving over the line, driving too slow, have a head light out or you have a taillight out.

read articles
latest-news

The Crime of Stalking in Alabama

Another category of criminal offense in Alabama is stalking. Covered by Article 5, stalking includes offenses for stalking in the first and second degree, aggravated stalking in the first and second degree, and electronic stalking in the first and second degree.

read articles
Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

In a case that demonstrates the intricacies of equitable division of marital property, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court in Jefferson County. The case of Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown illustrates the importance of maintaining a clear record on appeal and emphasizes the necessity of full disclosure when dividing marital assets.

read articles
Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

In a case illustrating the tumultuous and complicated proceedings for challenging a death sentence, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard the appeal of Brett Richard Yeiter v. State of Alabama, stemming from Escambia County. Yeiter’s case underscores the critical need to adhere to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving severe sentences.

read articles
latest-news

Trademark Infringement: Causes of Action Under the Lanham Act

Federal trademark law is primarily governed by the Lanham Trademark Act, also referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946. The Lanham Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. §§1051 to 1127, covers a wide range of trademark issues including registration, maintenance, protection, and the creation of a federal cause of action for trademark infringement.

read articles

schedule a consultation

Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo

Your path to get the right compensation starts here.