An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

An Overview of the

FEDERAL SENTENCING

UIDELINES

How the Sentencing Guidelines Work

he sentencing guidelines take into account both the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s

criminal history.

Offense Seriousness

The sentencing guidelines provide 43 levels of offense seriousness — the more serious the

crime, the higher the offense level.

Base Offense Level

Each type of crime is assigned a base offense level, which is the starting point for

determining the seriousness of a particular offense. More serious types of crime have higher base

offense levels (for example, a trespass has a base offense level of 4, while kidnapping has a base

offense level of 32).

Specific Offense Characteristics

In addition to base offense levels, each offense type typically carries with it a number of

specific offense characteristics. These are factors that vary from offense to offense, but that can

increase or decrease the base offense level and, ultimately, the sentence an offender receives. Some

examples:

· One of the specific base offense characteristics for fraud (which has a base offense level of 7

if the statutory maximum is 20 years or more) increases the offense level based on the

amount of loss involved in the offense. If a fraud involved a $6,000 loss, there is to be a

2-level increase to the base offense level, bringing the level up to 9. If a fraud involved a

$50,000 loss, there is to be a 6-level increase, bringing the total to 13.

· One of the specific offense characteristics for robbery (which has a base offense level of 20)

involves the use of a firearm. If a firearm was brandished during the robbery, there is to be

a 5-level increase, bringing the level to 25; if a firearm was discharged during the robbery,

there is to be a 7-level increase, bringing the level to 27.

Adjustments

Adjustments are factors that can apply to any offense. Like specific offense characteristics,

they increase or decrease the offense level. Categories of adjustments include: victim-related

adjustments, the offender’s role in the offense, and obstruction of justice. Examples of adjustments

are as follows:

· If the offender was a minimal participant in the offense, the offense level is decreased by 4

levels.

· If the offender knew that the victim was unusually vulnerable due to age or physical or

mental condition, the offense level is increased by 2 levels.

· If the offender obstructed justice, the offense level is increased by 2 levels.

Multiple Count Adjustments

When there are multiple counts of conviction, the sentencing guidelines provide instructions

on how to achieve a “combined offense level.” These rules provide incremental punishment for

significant additional criminal conduct. The most serious offense is used as a starting point. The

other counts determine whether and how much to increase the offense level.

Acceptance of Responsibility Adjustments

The final step in determining an offender’s offense level involves the offender’s acceptance of

responsibility. The judge may decrease the offense level by two levels if, in the judge’s opinion, the

offender accepted responsibility for his offense.

In deciding whether to grant this reduction, judges can consider such factors as:

· whether the offender truthfully admitted his or her role in the crime,

· whether the offender made restitution before there was a guilty verdict, and

· whether the offender pled guilty.

Offenders who qualify for the 2-level reduction and whose offense levels are greater than 15,

may, upon motion of the government, be granted an additional 1-level reduction if, in a timely

manner, they declare their intention to plead guilty.

Criminal History

The guidelines assign each offender to one of six criminal history categories based upon the

extent of an offender’s past misconduct. Criminal History Category I is the least serious category

and includes many first-time offenders. Criminal History Category VI is the most serious category

and includes offenders with serious criminal records.

Sentencing Table (excerpt)

(in months of imprisonment)

Criminal History Category

Offense

Level

I II III IV V VI

… … … … … …

19 30-37 33-41 37-46 46-57 57-71 63-78

20 33-41 37-46 41-51 51-63 63-78 70-87

21 37-46 41-51 46-57 57-71 70-87 77-96

… … … … … …

Determining the Guideline Range

The final offense level is determined by

taking the base offense level and then adding or

subtracting from it any specific offense

characteristics and adjustments that apply. The

point at which the final offense level and the

criminal history category intersect on the

Commission’s sentencing table determines the

defendant’s sentencing guideline range. In the

following excerpt from the sentencing table, an

offender with a Criminal History Category of I and

a final offense level of 20 would have a guideline

range of 33 to 41 months.

Sentences Outside of the Guideline Range

After the guideline range is determined, if an atypical aggravating or mitigating

circumstance exists, the court may “depart” from the guideline range. That is, the judge may

sentence the offender above or below the range. When departing, the judge must state in writing

the reason for the departure.

In January 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). The Booker decision addressed the question left unresolved by the Court’s decision in

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004): whether the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial

applies to the federal sentencing guidelines. In its substantive Booker opinion, the Court held that

the Sixth Amendment applies to the sentencing guidelines. In its remedial Booker opinion, the

Court severed and excised two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), which made the

federal guidelines mandatory, and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), an appeals provision.

Under the approach set forth by the Court, “district courts, while not bound to apply the

Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing,” subject to

review by the courts of appeal for “unreasonableness.” The subsequent Supreme Court decision in

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), held that courts of appeal may apply a presumption of

reasonableness when reviewing a sentence imposed within the guideline sentencing range.

The Supreme Court continued to stress the importance of the federal sentencing guidelines

in its most recent sentencing-related cases. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007) (“As a

matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting

point and initial benchmark” at sentencing); Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007)

(After Booker, “[a] district judge must include the Guidelines range in the array of factors warranting

consideration”).

For additional information about the United States Sentencing Commission, contact:

Office of Legislative and Public Affairs

United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500

Washington, DC 20002-8002

(202) 502-4500 ■ FAX: (202) 502-4699 ■ E-mail: pubaffairs@ussc.gov ■ www.ussc.gov

Disclaimer: The characterizations of the sentencing guidelines in this overview are presented in simplified form and

are not to be used for guideline interpretation, application, or authority