Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Charles Page
Date: 09-22-2025
Case Number: 22-CR-50
Judge: Louise Wood Flanagan
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Pitt County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Greenville
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Greenville Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
communication facility to facilitate a felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), (d).
Under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), it is a federal crime to knowingly or intentionally use any communication facility to commit, cause, or facilitate the commission of a drug-related felony.
The law applies to a wide array of communication methods and considers each separate use of a facility a distinct offense.
Prohibited actions
The law makes it illegal to use a communication facility for a drug felony, whether you are the one committing the crime or assisting someone else.
The key elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are that the defendant:
Knowingly or intentionally used a communication facility.
To facilitate a drug felony under the Controlled Substances Act.
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Charles Page?
The outcome was: the Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment followed by 1 year supervised release - $100 special assessment.
Which court heard United States of America v. Charles Page?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Pitt County), NC. The presiding judge was Louise Wood Flanagan.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Charles Page?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Greenville. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Greenville Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Charles Page decided?
This case was decided on September 22, 2025.