Federal Sentencing Guidelines Explained

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines can seem super confusing and complicated at first glance. But don’t worry – this article will break it all down into simple, easy-to-understand sections to help you wrap your head around how federal sentencing works.

What are the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are basically a set of rules created by the United States Sentencing Commission back in 1987. Their goal was to try and standardize sentencing across the federal courts and promote uniformity, so that similar crimes and criminals would get similar sentences.

Before the guidelines, judges had a ton of flexibility and discretion when it came to doling out federal sentences. This led to a lot of inconsistencies, with big variations in sentences for similar offenses. The guidelines aimed to fix this by laying out a clear system for determining sentences based on the details of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history.

How Do the Guidelines Work?

The guidelines use a point system to calculate a recommended sentencing range for each defendant. There are two main factors that determine the points:

1. The offense level – how serious the crime is
2. The defendant’s criminal history category

Let’s break these down…

Offense Level

Each crime is assigned a base offense level, which is basically its starting seriousness score. More serious crimes have higher base levels. For example:

• Trespassing – Base level 4
• Kidnapping – Base level 32

After the base level is set, points can be added or subtracted based on specific offense characteristics. These are factors like:

• Did the crime involve a weapon?
• Was anyone injured?
• How much money was lost?

Adding up the base level plus any increases or decreases results in the total offense level. This number will be somewhere between 1 and 43.

Criminal History Category

The guidelines also look at the defendant’s past criminal record and assign points based on any prior convictions. More extensive criminal histories lead to higher points. The total number of points puts the defendant into one of six criminal history categories, ranging from I to VI.

Figuring Out the Sentence

Once the offense level and criminal history category are determined, the guidelines manual provides a table to look up the recommended sentencing range. Where the offense level and criminal history category intersect on the table gives a minimum and maximum sentence, in months.

For example, someone with an offense level of 20 and a criminal history category of I would have a recommended sentence of 33-41 months under the guidelines.

Are the Guidelines Mandatory?

Nope! When they were first introduced in 1987, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and judges were required to sentence within the recommended range. But in the 2005 Supreme Court case United States v. Booker, the court ruled that mandatory guidelines violated the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial.

This made the guidelines advisory rather than compulsory. Judges are still required to calculate the guideline range, but they now have the discretion to sentence outside that range if they feel it is warranted.

Departures from the Guidelines

There are certain situations where a judge can make a “departure” from the guidelines and impose a sentence above or below the recommended range. Some reasons a judge might depart include:

• The presence of aggravating or mitigating factors about the crime or defendant that the guidelines don’t adequately account for
• If the defendant provides substantial assistance to law enforcement, like cooperating as an informant
• If the defendant agrees to a plea bargain

When a judge decides to depart from the guidelines, they must explain their reasoning on the record so that the departure can potentially be reviewed on appeal.

Appellate Review of Sentences

Defendants who receive a sentence under the guidelines are allowed to appeal that sentence. The appeals court will review the sentence for procedural errors, like miscalculating the guidelines or failing to explain a departure. The appeals court can also review for “substantive reasonableness” – meaning how the sentencing court balanced the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

However, sentences that fall within the properly calculated guideline range are presumed to be reasonable and won’t be overturned absent an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge.

Revocation of Probation and Supervised Release

If a defendant receives probation or a term of supervised release as part of their sentence, there are guidelines policies that apply if that supervision is later revoked. Common reasons for revocation include things like failing drug tests, not complying with supervision rules, or committing new crimes.

If supervision is revoked, the judge can impose a revocation sentence – sending the defendant to prison for violating the terms. The guidelines provide recommended ranges for revocation sentences based on the seriousness of the violation and the defendant’s criminal history category at the time of the original sentencing.

The Sentencing Commission and Guideline Amendments

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch that was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The main role of the Commission is to oversee federal sentencing policies and practices, including maintaining the guidelines.

Each year, the Commission reviews the guidelines and proposes amendments based on input they receive from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and others. Proposed amendments are published for public comment before being voted on by the Commission.

Since their inception, the guidelines have been amended over 800 times in response to application issues and new congressional legislation. While some amendments expand or clarify existing guidelines, others enact new guidelines or modify existing ones.

Data Collection and Analysis

The Commission collects data on every federal criminal case sentenced under the guidelines. This data allows them to analyze application of the guidelines, assess their impacts, and inform the amendment process. The Commission publishes detailed yearly data reports that provide statistics on trends in sentencing outcomes.

Some findings from recent years show that most sentences still fall within the recommended guideline range, but below range sentences have become more common since the 2005 Booker decision made the guidelines advisory. The data also shows differences in sentencing by citizenship, race, gender, and geography.

The Bottom Line

While the intricacies of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines can seem complex at first, the basic gist is that they provide a standardized point system for determining recommended sentences based on a defendant’s offense and criminal background. The guidelines were originally mandatory but are now advisory. Judges have more flexibility but still heavily rely on the guidelines system in practice.

Sentencing under the guidelines can involve departures, appeals, revocations, amendments, and lots of data analysis. But at its core, the guidelines aim to promote transparency, fairness, and uniformity in federal criminal sentencing.