UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
One Columbus Circle, NE
Suite 2-500, South Lobby
Washington, DC 20002-8002
(202) 502-4500 / Fax (202) 502-4699
www.ussc.gov
May 15, 2023
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Reeves
Commissioners
Ken Cohen, Staff Director
FROM: Office of Research and Data
Office of General Counsel
SUBJECT: Retroactivity Impact Analysis of Parts A and B of the 2023 Criminal History
Amendment
On April 27, 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress an
amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines revising two criminal history provisions found in
Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual.
1
Specifically, Part A of the amendment makes targeted
changes to reduce the impact of providing additional criminal history points for offenders under a
criminal justice sentence (commonly known as “status points”), and Part B, Subpart 1 provides a two-
level downward adjustment for certain offenders with zero criminal history points under the
guidelines (“zero-point offenders”).
2
Because these two provisions reduce the sentencing range for
some offenders, the Commission is statutorily required to determine whether either or both of these
parts of the amendment should be applied retroactively to previously sentenced, imprisoned
defendants.
3
As required by its Rules of Practice and Procedure,
4
the Commission voted at the April
5, 2023 public meeting to instruct staff to prepare a retroactivity impact analysis to aid the
Commission in determining whether to do so. This memorandum provides that analysis.
1
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, Guidelines Manual Ch.4, Pt.A (Criminal History) (2021) (hereinafter USSG).
2
See 88 FR 28254 (May 3, 2023).
3
28 U.S.C. § 994(u); see also Section II, infra.
4
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 4.1A (2016).
2
Part I of this memorandum summarizes the operation of the 2023 criminal history amendment
applicable to “status points” and “zero-point offenders.” Part II of the memorandum provides
background on the statutory authority and guidelines policy statement governing retroactive
application of amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines, noting the factors to be considered in
the Commission’s decision regarding retroactivity. Part III of the memorandum provides an estimate
of the impact of Parts A and B, Subpart 1 of the amendment if the Commission were to authorize the
courts to apply these parts of the amendment retroactively. Part IV of this memorandum describes
how the analysis was performed.
I. THE 2023 CRIMINAL HISTORY GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
The 2023 criminal history amendment makes two changes to the Chapter Four criminal
history rules, both of which would reduce the guidelines range for some offenders. Each relevant
part of the amendment is described below.
A. Status Points
Part A of the promulgated amendment limits the impact of “status points.” Under the current
Guidelines Manual, two criminal history points, colloquially referred to as “status points,” are added
under §4A1.1(d) if the defendant committed the instant offense “while under any criminal justice
sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
status.”
5
Like other provisions in Chapter Four, status points are included in the calculation of a
defendant’s criminal history as a reflection of several statutory purposes of sentencing.
6
Accounting
for a defendant’s criminal history in the guidelines addresses the need for the sentence “(A) to reflect
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [and] (C) to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant.”
7
The original Commission envisioned status points as “consistent
with the extant empirical research assessing correlates of recidivism and patterns of career criminal
behavior” and therefore envisioned “status points” as being reflective of, among other sentencing
goals, the increased likelihood of future recidivism.
8
A series of recent Commission publications has focused on one of these purposes of
sentencing—namely, specific deterrence and the need to protect the public from future crimes—
through detailed analyses regarding the recidivism rates of federal offenders.
9
These reports
concluded that a defendant’s criminal history calculation under the guidelines is strongly associated
5
A “criminal justice sentence” refers to a “sentence countable under §4A1.2 having a custodial or supervisory
component, although active supervision is not required.” USSG §4A1.1, comment. (n.4).
6
To calculate a criminal history score, courts are instructed to assign one, two, or three points to qualifying prior
sentences under §§4A1.1(a)–(c). One point is also added under §4A1.1(e) for any crime of violence that did not receive
criminal history points because it was treated as a single sentence with another crime of violence.
7
USSG Ch.4, Pt.A, intro. comment. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)).
8
Id.
9
See, e.g., U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, RECIDIVISM OF FEDERAL OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 2010 (2021), available at
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-offenders-released-2010.
3
with the likelihood of future recidivism by the defendant.
10
In a related publication, the Commission
also studied the extent to which status points contribute to the overall predictivity of the criminal
history score.
11
This study of status points built upon a previous 2010 study in which the
Commission analyzed both “status points” and “recency points,” finding that the combined effects of
“recency points” and “status points” had limited impact on the predictive ability of an offender’s
criminal history score.
12
As a result of the 2010 study, the Commission eliminated “recency points”
from Chapter Four.
13
The Commission’s recent status points study again reached the conclusion that status points
add little to the overall predictive value associated with the criminal history score.
14
Nevertheless,
“status points” are relatively common in cases with at least one criminal history point, having been
applied in 37.5 percent of cases with criminal history points over the last five fiscal years. Of the
offenders who received “status points,” 61.5 percent had a higher Criminal History Category (CHC)
as a result of the addition of the “status points.”
15
The Commission’s recent research suggests that
“status points” improve the predictive value of the criminal history score less than the original
Commission may have expected, suggesting that the treatment of “status points” under Chapter Four
should be refined.
In light of this research, Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment reduces the impact of
“status points” for offenders who committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice
sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
status. As amended, the “status points” provision under redesignated subsection (e) applies only to
offenders with more serious criminal histories under the guidelines. “Status points” will no longer
apply to offenders with less serious criminal histories—six or fewer criminal history points under
subsections (a) through (d)—even if the instant offense was committed while the offender was under
a criminal justice sentence. Offenders under a criminal justice sentence with seven or more criminal
history points under subsections (a) through (d) will be assessed one additional criminal point under
amended §4A1.1(e), rather than the two points previously assigned. By retaining but reducing the
impact of “status points” for offenders in higher criminal history categories, the Commission
continues to recognize that “status points,” like the other criminal history provisions in Chapter Four,
reflect and serve multiple purposes of sentencing, including the offender’s perceived lack of respect
10
Id.
11
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, REVISITING STATUS POINTS (2022), available at https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-
reports/revisiting-status-points. This report utilized the same methodology the Commission previously used when
studying recency points in its 2010 study.
12
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, COMPUTATION OF RECENCY CRIMINAL HISTORY POINTS UNDER USSG §4A1.1(E) (2010),
available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-
publications/2010/20100818_Recency_Report.pdf .
13
See USSG App. C, amend. 742 (effective Nov. 1, 2010) (Reason for Amendment) (“Recent research isolating the
effect of §4A1.1(e) on the predictive ability of the criminal history score indicated that consideration of recency only
minimally improves the predictive ability.”).
14
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, REVISITING STATUS POINTS (2022), available at https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-
reports/revisiting-status-points.
15
Id.
4
for the law, as reflected both in the offender’s overall criminal history and the fact that the offender
has reoffended while under a criminal justice sentence ordered by a court.
16
B. Zero-Point Offenders
The Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part A is divided into six criminal history categories,
from I (lowest) to VI (highest). The lowest Criminal History Category on the Sentencing Table in
Chapter Five, Part A of the Guidelines Manual, CHC I, includes offenders with zero or one criminal
history point. The Commission’s analysis of recidivism data, however, suggests that offenders with
zero criminal history points (“zero-point offenders”) have considerably lower recidivism rates than
other offenders, including offenders in CHC I with one criminal history point.
17
Among other
findings, the Commission’s recent recidivism report concluded that “zero-point” offenders were less
likely to be rearrested than “one point” offenders (26.8% compared to 42.3%). This represents the
largest difference in recidivism rates of any comparison of offenders within the same CHC.
Informed by this recidivism data, as well as other extensive data analyses of offenders with no
criminal history points, Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment creates a new
Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders), which provides a
decrease of two levels from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three for offenders
who did not receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A and whose instant offense
did not involve specified eligibility criteria.
New §4C1.1 defines “zero-point offenders” as those offenders with no criminal history points,
including (1) offenders with no prior convictions; (2) offenders who have prior convictions that are
not counted because those convictions were not within the time limits set forth in subsection (d) and
(e) of §4A1.2 (Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History); and (3) offenders who
have prior convictions that are not used in computing the CHC for reasons other than their
“staleness” (e.g., sentences resulting from foreign or tribal court convictions, minor misdemeanor
convictions, or infractions). This definition reflects the long-standing and carefully crafted criminal
history rules set forth in Chapter Four regarding which prior convictions count for criminal history
purposes and which do not.
While determining that a reduction is appropriate for some offenders with zero criminal
history points, the Commission also identified circumstances in which zero-point offenders are
appropriately excluded from eligibility in light of the seriousness of the instant offense of conviction
16
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C).
17
See U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, RECIDIVISM OF FEDERAL OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 2010 (2021), at 5, 27, available at
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-offenders-released-2010. The report notes that as a
group, offenders with zero criminal history points had a rearrest rate of 26.8 percent. Among offenders with zero criminal
history points, approximately half (47.9%) had no prior contact with the criminal justice system. The remaining half
(52.1%) of offenders with zero points had either prior arrests that did not result in convictions or convictions that did not
qualify for criminal history points, or both. One-fifth (20.3%) of zero-point offenders with no prior contact with the
criminal justice system were rearrested during the study period. In comparison, nearly one-third (32.7%) of zero-point
offenders with prior contact were rearrested. However, both groups of zero-point offenders were rearrested at lower rates
compared to their CHC I counterparts with one criminal history point, 42.3 percent of whom were rearrested during the
study period. Id. at 27–28.
5
or the existence of aggravating factors in the instant offense. In addition to having zero criminal
history points, all of the following criteria must be met:
• the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
• the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection with
the offense;
• the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
• the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
• the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
• the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise
dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do
so) in connection with the offense;
• the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses Involving
Individual Rights);
• the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime Motivation or
Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense); and
• the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was
not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848.
These exclusionary criteria were informed by extensive data analyses, public comment, and existing
legislation, including the congressionally established criteria for the statutory safety valve at 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f) and the recent firearms legislation set forth in the Bipartisan Safer Communities
Act.
II. RETROACTIVITY OF GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS
A. Statutory Authority
Because Parts A and B of the 2023 criminal history amendment reduces the sentencing range
applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses for some offenders, the Commission is
statutorily required to determine whether they may be retroactively applied. Section 994(u) of title
28, United States Code, provides that:
[i]f the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines
applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what
circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of
imprisonment for the offense may be reduced.
18
18
28 U.S.C. § 994(u). The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure address retroactive application of
amendments and list the procedures that the Commission will follow when considering retroactivity. Among other
things, “the Commission shall – (1) at the public meeting at which it votes to promulgate the amendment, or in a timely
manner thereafter, vote to publish a request for comment on whether to make the amendment available for retroactive
application; (2) instruct staff to prepare a retroactivity impact analysis of the amendment, if practicable….” U.S. SENT’G
COMM’N, Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 4.1A (2016). At its April 5, 2023 public meeting, the Commission
voted both to publish an issue for comment on whether to make the criminal history amendment available for retroactive
6
Sentencing courts are statutorily precluded from applying a guideline amendment retroactively unless
the Commission has designated such amendment for retroactive application. Section 3582(c)(2) of
title 18, United States Code, provides that the court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed except that:
in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on
a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after
considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,
if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.
19
Modifications of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) are unaffected by United States v. Booker
20
and USSG §1B1.10 remains binding on courts in such proceedings.
21
The Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure provide that the defendant is not required to be present at a proceeding under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).
22
B. Guidelines Manual Policy Statement
The Commission promulgated USSG §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a
Result of Amended Guideline Range) (Policy Statement) to implement 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) and to
provide guidance to a court when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Subsection (a)
of §1B1.10 specifies when a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is available:
In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline
range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may
reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.
23
Section 1B1.10 further explains that a reduction would not be consistent with the policy statement if
none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) of section 1B1.10 are applicable to the defendant or
if a listed amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
application, with a public comment period closing on June 23, 2023, and to instruct staff to prepare this retroactivity
impact analysis.
19
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
20
543 U.S. 220 (2005) (rendering guidelines advisory).
21
See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010).
22
Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4) (“A defendant need not be present [when a] proceeding involves the correction or reduction
of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”).
23
USSG §1B1.10(a)(1).
7
range.”
24
Additionally, that section provides that proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) “do not
constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.”
25
In addition to specifying which guideline amendments may be retroactively applied,
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), section 1B1.10 guides courts as to the extent of a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Subsection (b)(1) of USSG §1B1.10 states:
In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the term of imprisonment is
warranted for a defendant eligible for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the
court shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to
the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in
effect at the time the defendant was sentenced. In making such determination, the court
shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave
all other guideline application decisions unaffected.
26
Section 1B1.10 further provides that, as a general matter, the extent of the reduction granted should
not go below the amended guideline range determined in accordance with subsection (b)(1).
27
However, an exception is noted where the sentence originally imposed “was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range . . . pursuant to a government motion to reflect the
defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities” in which case “a reduction comparably less than the
amended guideline range . . . may be appropriate.”
28
Under no circumstances may a court reduce a
term of imprisonment to less than the term already served by the defendant.
29
C. Policy Determinations and Factors to be Considered Regarding Retroactivity
The decision to list an amendment as retroactively applicable to previously sentenced,
imprisoned defendants in §1B1.10(d) (Covered Amendments) “reflects policy determinations by the
Commission that a reduced guideline range is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing and
that, in the sound discretion of the court, a reduction in the term of imprisonment may be appropriate
for previously sentenced, qualified defendants.”
30
The background commentary further provides that
“authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not otherwise affect the lawfulness of a
previously imposed sentence, does not authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence,
and does not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right.”
31
24
USSG §1B1.10(a)(2).
25
USSG §1B1.10(a)(3).
26
USSG §1B1.10(b)(1).
27
USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
28
USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
29
USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(C).
30
See USSG §1B1.10, comment. (backg’d.).
31
Id.
8
The retroactivity impact analysis and accompanying data that follow is intended to inform the
Commission’s decision as to whether to include the Part A of the amendment regarding “status
points” or Part B, Subpart 1 of the amendment regarding “zero-point offenders” in §1B1.10(d) as
retroactive. Specifically, the below analyses are intended to assist the Commission’s evaluation of
the factors traditionally considered in selecting the amendments for retroactivity, including “the
purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the
amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended
guideline range under subsection (b)(1).”
32
The determination under each of these factors, as well as
the weight they are accorded, may differ for each part of the criminal history amendment. As
discussed above, the purpose of each part of the criminal history amendment was different. While
both relied upon recidivism and other data analyses, each part of the amendment addressed different
concerns.
Similarly, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range and the difficulty of applying
the amendment retroactively differ. Staff has prepared the following to assist the Commission’s
consideration of these factors. As reflected in the analysis, the magnitude of the change in the
guideline range, as reflected by the magnitude and extent of the reduction, is different for Part A and
Part B of the criminal history amendment. Additionally, the difficulty of applying each part
retroactively may be different, as reflected in the scope and nature of the assumptions required for
each separate analysis. For the amendment made by Part A pertaining to status points, additional
fact-finding is not required to determine the amended guideline range and thus it was not necessary to
make factual methodological assumptions in completing the analysis. On the other hand, additional
fact-finding relating to some of the exclusionary criteria under the new §4C1.1 is required to
determine whether a “zero-point offender” receives the two-level reduction. As such, it was
necessary to make certain factual methodological assumptions to approximate such fact-finding in
order to conduct the retroactivity analysis for Part B, Subpart 1.
32
Id.
9
III. IMPACT OF THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE 2023 CRIMINAL
HISTORY AMENDMENT
A. Introduction to the Data Analysis
In response to the Commission’s instruction to staff on April 5, 2023, this section of the
memorandum provides an analysis of the estimated impact of the Commission’s 2023 criminal
history amendment for offenders incarcerated in the federal prison system, should the
Commission vote to make Parts A or B, Subpart 1 of that amendment retroactive.
B. Findings as to the Retroactivity of Part A of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment
Staff estimates that there are 50,545 offenders in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) as of January 28, 2023,
33
who were assigned status points at sentencing (“status
points offenders”). Of the 50,545 offenders, 20,598 (40.8%) were assigned a criminal history
score of 6 or lower (without regard to status points) at sentencing under USSG §4A1.1. Under
retroactive application of Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment, the total criminal
history score for these offenders would be reduced by two points. The remaining 29,943
offenders (59.2%)
34
were assigned a criminal history score of 7 or higher (without regard to
status points) at sentencing under USSG §4A1.1. Under retroactive application of Part A of the
2023 criminal history amendment, the total criminal history score for these offenders would be
reduced by one point.
Staff estimates that approximately one-quarter (22.7%, n = 11,495) of the 50,545 status
points offenders would have a lower guideline range if the Commission were to make Part A of
the 2023 criminal history amendment retroactive and, therefore, would be eligible to seek a
modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
35
The current average sentence for those
offenders is 120 months. If the courts were to grant the full reduction possible in each case, the
projected new average sentence for those offenders would be 106 months, a reduction of 14
months (or 11.7%). The offenders would be released over a period of many years.
The most common reasons why the remaining status points offenders would not have a
lower guideline range were:
• the change to the offender’s criminal history score did not change the Criminal
History Category (CHC) to which they were assigned (53.5%, n = 20,847);
• the offender’s CHC was determined by another guideline provision
36
(25.7%,
33
The most recent date for which the Commission received information from the BOP regarding incarcerated offenders.
34
The criminal history score of four offenders was missing.
35
Of the 11,495 eligible offenders, 8,964 were assigned a criminal history score of 6 or lower (without regard to status
points) at sentencing under USSG §4A1.1, and 2,531 were assigned a criminal history score of 7 or higher (without
regard to status points) at sentencing under USSG §4A1.1.
36
E.g., USSG §§4B1.1 (career offender), 4B1.4 (armed career criminal), 4B1.5 (repeat and dangerous sex offenders
against minors), or 3A1.4 (terrorism).
10
n = 10,014);
• the offender’s current sentence is below the new guideline range and the offender
did not receive a departure for substantial assistance when initially sentenced
(11.0%, n = 4,299); or
• the offender was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence (5.2%,
n = 2,032).
37
1. Distribution of eligible offenders by fiscal year of sentence
Table 1 presents the number of offenders who are eligible for retroactive application of
Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment by the fiscal year in which the offender was
sentenced. As would be expected, the more recent the fiscal year the greater the number of
offenders who are still serving their sentence and so would be eligible to seek a reduced sentence.
37
Other reasons that status points offenders were estimated to not have a lower guidelines range under the amendment
include: the guideline range did not change (3.9%, n = 1,532); the only statute or statutes of conviction were 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) or 18 U.S.C. § 1028(A) (0.5%, n = 186); or the projected change in sentence was less than one month (0.2%,
n = 57).
11
Table 1A
Fiscal Year of Sentence
for Offenders Eligible Under Part A
ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS
N %
TOTAL 11,495 100.0
Fiscal Year of Sentence
2023
436
3.8
2022
2,809
24.4
2021
1,962
17.1
2020
1,340
11.7
2019
1,354
11.8
2018
938
8.2
2017
687
6.0
2016
487
4.2
2015
317
2.8
2014
249
2.2
2013
193
1.7
2012
168
1.5
2011
94
0.8
2010
96
0.8
2009
61
0.5
2008
58
0.5
2007
47
0.4
2006
34
0.3
2005
34
0.3
2004
23
0.2
2003
20
0.2
2002
19
0.2
2001
11
0.1
2000
16
0.1
1999
6
0.1
1998
6
0.1
1997
8
0.1
1996
8
0.1
1995
2
0.0
1994
6
0.1
1993
1
0.0
1992
3
0.0
1991
2
0.0
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles,
USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
2. Geographic distribution of eligible offenders
Table 2 presents information on the number of eligible offenders sentenced in each
judicial district and, therefore, where the consideration of the issue of retroactive application of
the amendment in their cases would most likely occur. This list presents the offenders in
descending order by the number of offenders in each district.
12
Table 2A
Geographic Distribution of Offenders Eligible Under Part A
By District
District
N
%
District
N
%
TOTAL
11,495
100.0
Western Texas
822
7.2
North Dakota
91
0.8
Southern Texas
647
5.6
Middle Pennsylvania
90
0.8
Northern Texas
525
4.6
Western New York
89
0.8
Eastern Tennessee
345
3.0
South Dakota
89
0.8
Eastern North Carolina
336
2.9
Southern Alabama
88
0.8
Eastern Virginia
305
2.7
Southern California
87
0.8
Northern Ohio
265
2.3
Northern Indiana
87
0.8
Western Missouri
264
2.3
Eastern Louisiana
76
0.7
Eastern Missouri
263
2.3
New Jersey
75
0.7
Eastern Texas
228
2.0
Western Oklahoma
72
0.6
Maryland
207
1.8
Idaho
71
0.6
Western North Carolina
203
1.8
Utah
71
0.6
Middle Florida
196
1.7
Northern West Virginia
71
0.6
Southern Georgia
194
1.7
Western Kentucky
68
0.6
Puerto Rico
194
1.7
Eastern Wisconsin
68
0.6
Southern Florida
192
1.7
Northern California
63
0.6
Arizona
188
1.6
Nebraska
63
0.6
South Carolina
185
1.6
Eastern
New York
59
0.5
Eastern Kentucky
178
1.6
Western Arkansas
58
0.5
Southern Iowa
157
1.4
Southern West Virginia
57
0.5
Eastern Michigan
157
1.4
Eastern Oklahoma
55
0.5
Western Tennessee
156
1.4
Connecticut
54
0.5
Middle North Carolina
153
1.3
Middle Tennessee
54
0.5
Northern Alabama
147
1.3
Northern Oklahoma
52
0.5
Southern Indiana
146
1.3
Middle Alabama
49
0.4
New Mexico
143
1.2
Northern New York
47
0.4
Eastern Pennsylvania
142
1.2
Oregon
46
0.4
Northern Iowa
140
1.2
Eastern Washington
45
0.4
Southern New York
140
1.2
District of Columbia
44
0.4
Central California
138
1.2
Northern Mississippi
44
0.4
Northern Georgia
134
1.2
Hawaii
42
0.4
Eastern Arkansas
131
1.1
Nevada
38
0.3
Eastern California
114
1.0
Alaska
37
0.3
Kansas
112
1.0
Massachusetts
34
0.3
Western Virginia
109
1.0
Northern Florida
32
0.3
Southern Ohio
108
0.9
Wyoming
32
0.3
Northern Illinois
105
0.9
Western Washington
29
0.3
Central Illinois
104
0.9
New Hampshire
28
0.2
Western Michigan
103
0.9
Middle Louisiana
22
0.2
Middle Georgia
100
0.9
Western Wisconsin
21
0.2
Southern Illinois
99
0.9
Maine
18
0.2
Montana
99
0.9
Delaware
12
0.1
Southern Mississippi
98
0.9
Vermont
7
0.1
Western Louisiana
97
0.8
Guam
5
0.0
Western Pennsylvania
97
0.8
Rhode Island
5
0.0
Colorado
91
0.8
Virgin Islands
2
0.0
Minnesota
91
0.8
Northern Mariana Islands
0
0.0
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023,
USSCFY23.
13
3. Offender characteristics
Table 3 presents information on the demographic characteristics of the offenders who are
eligible for retroactive application of Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment. The
majority are men (93.2%) and U.S. citizens (87.2%). Black offenders account for 43.0 percent of
the eligible group, followed by Hispanic offenders (27.8%), White offenders (25.0%), and Other
races (4.2%). The average age of these offenders on January 28, 2023 was 38 years.
Table 3A
Demographic Characteristics of Offenders Eligible Under Part A
Race/Ethnicity
White
2,868
25.0%
Black
4,941
43.0%
Hispanic
3,194
27.8%
Other
478
4.2%
Total
11,481
100.0%
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen
10,017
87.2%
Non-Citizen
1,475
12.8%
Total
11,492
100.0%
Gender
Male
10,718
93.2%
Female
777
6.8%
Total
11,495
100.0%
Average Age
38 years
(as of 01/28/2023)
34 years
(at sentencing)
The analysis involves a total of 11,495 cases, however, cases missing information for any specific
analysis are excluded from that analysis.
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
14
4. Offense characteristics
Table 4 presents information about selected offense-related factors that contributed to the
guideline range that applied when the offenders were initially sentenced, the Criminal History
Categories of these offenders, and the extent to which their original sentences were within the
applicable guideline ranges.
Table 4A
Sentencing Characteristics, Criminal History, and Position Relative to the
Guideline Range of Offenders Eligible Under Part A
Average Base Offense Level
23
Select Sentencing Characteristics
Weapon Specific Offense Characteristic
2,176
18.9%
Firearms Mandatory Minimum Applied
2,074
18.0%
Safety Valve §5C1.2
210
1.8%
Aggravating Role §3B1.1
980
8.5%
Mitigating Role §3B1.2
218
1.9%
Obstruction Adjustment §3C1.1
460
4.0%
Career Offender Status §4B1.1
0
0.0%
Original Criminal History Category
I
0
0.0%
II
1,033
9.0%
III
3,788
32.9%
IV
4,138
36.0%
V
1,515
13.2%
VI
1,021
8.9%
Total
11,495
100.0%
Sentence Relative to the Guideline Range
Within Range
7,091
61.7%
Above Range
1,030
9.0%
Substantial Assistance §5K1.1
2,032
17.7%
Otherwise Below Range
1,342
11.6%
Total
11,495
100.0%
The analysis involves a total of 11,495 cases, however, cases missing information for any specific
analysis are excluded from that analysis.
The original criminal history category is the category before status points were removed.
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
15
5. Type of crime of offenders eligible for retroactive application of the amendment
Table 5 provides the type of crime for the instant offense of offenders eligible for a
reduction in sentence pursuant to Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment. Drug
trafficking was the most common instant offense (40.5%) among offenders eligible to seek a
modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Table 5A
Instant Type of Crime for
Offenders Eligible Under Part A
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
6. Extent of possible sentence reduction
As discussed above, the average extent of reduction for offenders who are eligible for a
reduced sentence under Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment is 11.7 percent. Figure 1
shows the distribution of the extent of the possible reductions by the sentence length for these
offenders. A majority (60.7%) of offenders would receive a sentence reduction of one year or
less. Conversely, 2.3 percent would receive a sentence reduction of more than 36 months.
Crime Type
N
%
TOTAL
11,495
100.0
Drug Trafficking
Firearms
Robbery
Immigration
Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement
Child Pornography
Assault
Sexual Abuse
Money Laundering
Murder
Prison Offenses
Obscenity/Other Sex Offenses
Kidnapping
Stalking/Harassing
Administration of Justice
Manslaughter
4,658
2,371
1,391
1,049
419
325
257
250
171
156
144
55
43
39
35
35
40.5
20.6
12.1
9.1
3.7
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.4
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
All Other Crime Types
97
0.8
16
Figure 1A
Extent of Possible Sentence Reduction for Offenders Eligible Under Part A
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from
FY 2023, USSCFY23.
7. Projected release dates
The offenders who are eligible to seek a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
if Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment made retroactive are projected to be eligible
for release at various times over a period of more than 30 years.
As shown on Table 6, if the amendment were retroactive on November 1, 2023, 2,090
offenders would be eligible for immediate release.
38
Approximately forty percent (38.5%; n =
4,429) of the offenders (for whom the Commission had sufficient data to perform this analysis)
are eligible to be released within the first year after the effective date of the amendment
(November 1, 2023, if the Commission were to make the amendment retroactive as of that date).
Approximately four-fifths (77.9%) of the eligible offenders would be eligible for release during
the first five years.
Table 6 also compares the projected release dates for eligible offenders by year if the
amendment is made retroactive to the estimated release dates for these same offenders if the
amendment were not made retroactive. For example, if the amendment is made retroactive, a total
38
Non-U.S. citizens comprise 23.7% (n=495) of the offenders eligible for immediate release.
17
of 4,429 offenders would be eligible within the first year of the effective date of the amendment,
while 3,163 will be released under their current, unamended sentence. As such retroactive
application of the amendment would make an additional 1,266 offenders eligible for release
within the first year.
Table 6A
Projected Year of Release for Offenders Eligible Under Part A
IF AMENDMENT
RETROACTIVE
IF AMENDMENT
NOT
RETROACTIVE
Release Date
N
N
Immediate Release
2,090
--
Within Year 1
2,339
3,163
Within Year 2
1,694
1,902
Within Year 3
1,210
1,379
Within Year 4
950
1,063
Within Year 5
667
844
After Year 5
2,545
3,144
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
C. Findings as to the Retroactivity of Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 Criminal History
Amendment
Staff estimates that there are 34,922 offenders in BOP custody as of January 28, 2023, for
whom no criminal history points were assigned under Chapter Four, Part A of the Guidelines
Manual when sentenced for their instant offense. Of those 34,922 zero-point offenders, 12,574
meet the criteria in Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment.
39
Staff estimates
that slightly more than half (57.8%, n = 7,272) of those offenders would have lower guideline
range if the Commission were to make Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment
retroactive and, therefore, would be eligible to seek a modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). The current average sentence for those eligible zero-point offenders is 85 months.
If the courts were to grant the full reduction possible in each case, the projected new average
sentence for those offenders would be 70 months, a reduction of 15 months (or 17.6%). The
offenders would be released over a period of many years.
39
See supra, at Part IB of this memorandum, for a discussion of these criteria.
18
The two most common reasons why the remaining zero-point offenders meeting the eligibility
criteria under the amendment would not have a lower guideline range were:
• the offender’s current sentence is below the new guideline range and the offender
did not receive a departure for substantial assistance when initially sentenced (82.0%,
n = 4,248); or
• the offender was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
(15.7%, n = 811).
40
1. Distribution of eligible zero-point offenders by fiscal year of sentence
Table 1 presents the number of offenders who are eligible for retroactive application of
Part B, Subpart 1of the 2023 criminal history amendment by the fiscal year in which the offender
was sentenced. As would be expected, except for 2023, the more recent the sentencing year the
greater the number of offenders who are still serving their sentence and so would be eligible to
seek a reduced sentence.
40
Other reasons that offenders were estimated to not have a lower guidelines range under the amendment include: the
guideline range did not change (1.6%, n = 81); the only statute or statutes of conviction were 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) or 18
U.S.C. § 1028(A) (0.7%, n = 37); the projected change in sentence was less than one month (0.1%, n = 3); or the final
offense level did not change (0.02%, n = 1).
19
Table 1B
Fiscal Year of Sentence for Offenders Eligible Under Part B
ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS
N %
TOTAL 7,272 100.0
Fiscal Year of Sentence
2023
525
7.2
2022
2,496
34.3
2021
1,336
18.4
2020
730
10.0
2019
600
8.3
2018
559
7.7
2017
440
6.1
2016
265
3.6
2015
125
1.7
2014
45
0.6
2013
29
0.4
2012
29
0.4
2011
22
0.3
2010
13
0.2
2009
7
0.1
2008
5
0.1
2007
14
0.2
2006
8
0.1
2005
2
0.0
2004
5
0.1
2003
5
0.1
2002
1
0.0
2001
6
0.1
2000
0
0.0
1999
2
0.0
1998
0
0.0
1997
0
0.0
1996
1
0.0
1995
0
0.0
1994
1
0.0
1993
1
0.0
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles,
USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
2. Geographic distribution of eligible offenders
Table 2 presents information on the 7,272 eligible zero-point offenders sentenced by
judicial district. Therefore, these districts are where the consideration of the issue of retroactive
application of the amendment in their cases would most likely occur. This list presents the
offenders in descending order by the number of eligible offenders in each district.
20
Table 2B
Geographic Distribution of Offenders Eligible Under Part B
By District
District
N
%
District
N
%
TOTAL
7,272
100.0
Middle Florida
1,122
15.4
Montana
31
0.4
Southern Texas
717
9.9
Northern California
30
0.4
Western Texas
695
9.6
Middle Georgia
30
0.4
Southern Florida
636
8.8
Eastern Louisiana
29
0.4
Northern Texas
426
5.9
Western New York
29
0.4
Eastern Texas
303
4.2
District of Columbia
28
0.4
Puerto Rico
195
2.7
Northern Oklahoma
28
0.4
Southern California
137
1.9
Nevada
27
0.4
Southern New York
115
1.6
New Mexico
27
0.4
Eastern Virginia
109
1.5
South Dakota
27
0.4
Northern Georgia
104
1.4
Eastern New York
26
0.4
New Jersey
92
1.3
Middle
Pennsylvania
26
0.4
Central California
87
1.2
Western Virginia
26
0.4
Eastern Pennsylvania
75
1.0
Idaho
25
0.3
Eastern California
73
1.0
Southern Illinois
25
0.3
Eastern Tennessee
72
1.0
Northern Florida
24
0.3
Northern Ohio
65
0.9
Northern Iowa
24
0.3
Northern Alabama
63
0.9
Western Oklahoma
24
0.3
Nebraska
61
0.8
Virgin Islands
24
0.3
Eastern Michigan
60
0.8
Northern Indiana
23
0.3
Massachusetts
59
0.8
Eastern Washington
23
0.3
Eastern Kentucky
58
0.8
Connecticut
21
0.3
Colorado
55
0.8
New Hampshire
21
0.3
Eastern North Carolina
54
0.7
Northern West Virginia
21
0.3
Northern Illinois
53
0.7
Western Tennessee
19
0.3
Eastern Missouri
52
0.7
Central Illinois
18
0.3
Western Missouri
52
0.7
Oregon
18
0.3
Southern Indiana
51
0.7
Western Kentucky
17
0.2
Utah
51
0.7
Southern West Virginia
16
0.2
Southern Ohio
50
0.7
Western Washington
16
0.2
Kansas
48
0.7
Eastern Oklahoma
15
0.2
Maryland
47
0.7
Western Arkansas
13
0.2
Arizona
45
0.6
Guam
13
0.2
Western North Carolina
43
0.6
Middle Alabama
11
0.2
Northern New York
43
0.6
Middle Louisiana
11
0.2
Minnesota
42
0.6
Western Wisconsin
11
0.2
South Carolina
42
0.6
North Dakota
10
0.1
Southern Alabama
41
0.6
Wyoming
8
0.1
Southern Georgia
41
0.6
Alaska
7
0.1
Eastern Arkansas
40
0.6
Maine
7
0.1
Southern Mississippi
39
0.5
Northern Mississippi
7
0.1
Hawaii
35
0.5
Rhode Island
6
0.1
Western Pennsylvania
34
0.5
Delaware
5
0.1
Western Michigan
33
0.5
Vermont
5
0.1
Middle North Carolina
33
0.5
Eastern Wisconsin
4
0.1
Southern Iowa
31
0.4
Northern Mariana Islands
3
0.0
Western Louisiana
31
0.4
Middle Tennessee
3
0.0
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023,
USSCFY23.
21
3. Offender characteristics
Table 3 presents information on the demographic characteristics of the zero-point
offenders who are eligible for retroactive application of Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal
history amendment. The majority are men (84.5%). More than half are not U.S. citizens
(53.2%). Hispanic offenders account for 69.9 percent of the eligible group, followed by White
offenders (16.9%), Black offenders (9.9%), and Other races (3.3%). The average age of these
offenders on January 28, 2023, was 41 years.
Table 3B
Demographic Characteristics of Offenders Eligible Under Part B
Race/Ethnicity
White
1,224
16.9%
Black
716
9.9%
Hispanic
5,076
69.9%
Other
243
3.3%
Total
7,259
100.0%
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen
3,399
46.8%
Non-Citizen
3,857
53.2%
Total
7,256
100.0%
Gender
Male
6,147
84.5%
Female
1,125
15.5%
Total
7,272
100.0%
Average Age
41 years
(as of 01/28/2023)
38 years
(at sentencing)
The analysis involves a total of 7,272 cases, however, cases missing information for any specific
analysis are excluded from that analysis.
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
22
4. Offense characteristics
Table 4 presents information about selected offense-related factors that contributed to the
guideline range that applied when the eligible offenders were initially sentenced, the Criminal
History Categories of these offenders, and the extent to which their original sentences were
within the applicable guideline ranges.
Table 4B
Sentencing Characteristics, Criminal History, and Position Relative to the
Guideline Range of Offenders Eligible Under Part B
Average Base Offense Level
29
Select Sentencing Characteristics
Weapon Specific Offense Characteristic
0
0.0%
Firearms Mandatory Minimum Applied
0
0.0%
Safety Valve §5C1.2
4,603
63.3%
Aggravating Role §3B1.1
0
0.0%
Mitigating Role §3B1.2
1,129
15.5%
Obstruction Adjustment §3C1.1
295
4.1%
Career Offender Status §4B1.1
0
0.0%
Original Criminal History Category
I
7,272
100.0%
II
0
0.0%
III
0
0.0%
IV
0
0.0%
V
0
0.0%
VI
0
0.0%
Total
7,272
100.0%
Sentence Relative to the Guideline Range
Within Range
4,030
55.4%
Above Range
224
3.1%
Substantial Assistance §5K1.1
1,645
22.6%
Otherwise Below Range
1,370
18.9%
Total
7,269
100.0%
The analysis involves a total of 7,272 cases, however, cases missing information for any specific analysis
are excluded from that analysis.
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles, USSCFY91-USSCFY22,
and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
23
5. Type of crime of zero-point offenders eligible for retroactive application
of the amendment
Table 5 provides the type of crime for the instant offense of offenders eligible for a
reduction in sentence pursuant to Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment.
Drug trafficking was the most common instant offense (74.3%) for eligible zero-point
offenders.
Table 5B
Instant Type of Crime
for Offenders Eligible Under Part B
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles,
USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
6. Extent of possible sentence reduction
As discussed above, the average extent of reduction for offenders who are eligible for
a reduced sentence under Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment is 17.6
percent. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the extent of the possible reductions by the
sentence length for these offenders. More than half (51.9%) would receive a sentence
reduction of one year or less. Conversely, 4.0 percent would receive a sentence reduction of
more than 36 months.
Crime Type
N
%
TOTAL
7,272
100.0
Drug Trafficking
Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement
Money Laundering
Immigration
Bribery/Corruption
Tax
Administration of Justice
Obscenity/Other Sex Offenses
Stalking/Harassing
Manslaughter
5,404
932
421
154
92
87
41
31
26
18
74.3
12.8
5.8
2.1
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
All Other Crime Types
66
0.9
24
Figure 1B
Extent of Possible Sentence Reduction for Offenders Eligible Under Part B
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles,
USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
7. Projected release dates
The offenders who are eligible to seek a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
if Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment were made retroactive are
projected to be eligible for release at various times over a period of more than 30 years.
As shown on Table 6, if this part of the criminal history amendment were retroactive
on November 1, 2023, 1,198 offenders would be eligible for immediate release.
41
Almost
half (45.0%; n = 3,274) of the eligible zero-point offenders (for whom the Commission had
sufficient data to perform this analysis) are eligible to be released at within the first year
after the effective date of the amendment. More than 90 percent (91.6%) of the eligible
zero-point offenders would be eligible for release during the first five years if the
amendment were made retroactive.
Table 6 also compares the projected release dates for eligible offenders by year if the
amendment is made retroactive to the estimated release dates for these same offenders if the
41
Non-U.S. citizens comprise 73.5% (n=878) of the offenders eligible for immediate release.
25
amendment were not made retroactive. For example, if the amendment is made retroactive, a
total of 3,274 offenders would be eligible within the first year of the effective date of the
amendment, while 1,802 will be released under their current, unamended sentence. As such
retroactive application of the amendment would make an additional 1,472 offenders eligible
for release within the first year.
Table 6B
Projected Year of Release for Offenders Eligible Under Part B
IF AMENDMENT
RETROACTIVE
IF AMENDMENT
NOT
RETROACTIVE
Release Date
N
N
Immediate Release
1,198
--
Within Year 1
2,076
1,802
Within Year 2
1,535
1,733
Within Year 3
976
1,240
Within Year 4
558
845
Within Year 5
309
510
After Year 5
620
1,142
SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FY 1991 through FY 2022 Datafiles,
USSCFY91-USSCFY22, and Preliminary Data from FY 2023, USSCFY23.
IV. HOW THE ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED
A. Methodology
The methodology for this analysis is based on the Commission’s Prison Impact Model,
which has been in use in some form since the guidelines were first developed. This model is
used to estimate the impact of proposed statutory and guideline amendments on newly
sentenced offenders and to project the future impact those amendments will have on bed space
in the BOP. For this analysis, offenders who appear to be eligible to receive a reduced
sentence were hypothetically “resentenced” pursuant to the limitations set forth in §1B1.10 as
if the amendment had been in effect in the year in which they were sentenced. A new release
date for each offender was calculated in order to determine when the offender would be
eligible for release if he or she were to receive the full reduction in sentence provided by the
amendment.
26
B. The Offender Population Studied
The Bureau of Prisons provided the Commission with a datafile of inmates who were
in the custody of the BOP on January 28, 2023. That file contained information on 139,803
federal offenders.
42
The Commission was able to match the BOP data to 138,702 offenders in
Commission records sentenced between fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 2023.
43
The
sentencing information needed to conduct the analysis discussed in this memorandum was
sufficient for 137,020 of these offenders.
44
C. Assumptions Made for This Analysis
In performing the analysis, staff was required to make some assumptions (set forth
below) concerning the fact-finding decisions the courts would be required to make in
determining whether, and to what extent, to reduce the sentences of offenders eligible to
receive a modification of sentence pursuant to the 2023 criminal history amendment. These
assumptions may not hold in every case.
1. Eligibility for Part A of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment Regarding
Status Points
Staff have assumed that the effective date of retroactivity for Part A of the 2023 criminal
history amendment would be November 1, 2023.
45
Further, we assumed that the courts would
resentence offenders in a manner that is consistent with the Guidelines Manual in effect as of
November 1, 2023.
A case was determined to be eligible for retroactive application of the Part A of the
amendment if it met the following criteria:
(A) the offender was assigned status points under USSG §4A1.1(d) when
initially sentenced;
42
There were approximately 5,800 additional offenders in BOP custody who were pre-trial offenders, offenders
sentenced in the courts of the District of Columbia, or military offenders. Those offenders were excluded from this
analysis.
43
BOP records for 1,101 offenders could not be matched to Commission records due to missing or inconsistent
information on offender name, sentence date, or other identifying information. Some of these offenders may be
eligible to seek a reduced sentence pursuant to Part A or Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment.
44
Some of the 1,682 offenders for whom the Commission’s sentencing information was insufficient to conduct the
analysis discussed in this memorandum may be eligible to seek a reduced sentence pursuant to Part A or Part B,
Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment.
45
Should the Commission make Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment retroactive, it will also specify the
date on which that part of the amendment may be applied retroactively.
27
(B) the offender’s final offense level was not derived from the career offender
or armed career criminal guideline;
46
(C) the offender’s Criminal History Category was not determined through
application of the adjustment at USSG §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
47
(D) the offender’s Criminal History Category was not determined through
application of the provision at USSG §4B1.5(a) regarding repeat and
dangerous sex offenders against minors;
48
(E) the offender’s original sentence was greater than any applicable statutory
mandatory minimum punishment, unless the offender received relief from
the mandatory minimum punishment pursuant to the statutory safety
valve
49
or the offender received a departure for substantial assistance
50
when originally sentenced;
51
and
46
In cases where the offender is classified as a career offender or an armed career criminal under USSG §4B1.1 and
§4B1.4 of the guidelines, the final offense level that applies in the case is the level determined pursuant to either
these guideline provisions or the applicable Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 guidelines, whichever is higher. Offenders for
whom the original final offense level was controlled by the career offender or armed career criminal sections of the
guidelines, therefore, were excluded from the analysis because Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment will
not affect their sentencing range.
47
That provision requires that the offender be assigned to CHC VI. Offenders whose CHC was assigned by this
provision were excluded from the analysis because the Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment will not
affect their sentencing range.
48
That provision requires that the offender’s CHC be the higher of the CHC determined under Chapter Four, Part A
of the Guidelines Manual or CHC V. Offenders whose CHC was assigned by this provision were excluded from the
analysis because Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment will not affect their sentencing range.
49
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
50
18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); USSG §5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities).
51
Offenders sentenced at the applicable mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, who did not receive relief
under the statutory safety valve or who did not receive a substantial assistance departure were excluded because
their sentence cannot be reduced below the existing mandatory minimum punishment despite a reduction in their
guideline level based on the amendment. These offenders were originally sentenced to the shortest sentence of
imprisonment available to the court, the statutory minimum for the offense.
The Commission’s data do not reflect any reduction in sentence that may have occurred after the date of the
original sentence, for example, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) based on an offender's
substantial assistance to the government. Under this rule, the court may sentence an offender below any otherwise
applicable mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Therefore, an offender who received a sentence reduction
pursuant to Rule 35(b) would be eligible to seek a reduced sentence under the amendment if it were to be made
retroactive (assuming all other criteria above are met). Commission data do not include the information necessary to
determine which offenders originally sentenced at a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment receive a reduced
sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) after the original sentence was imposed. Therefore, staff’s estimate of the number
of offenders who appear to be eligible to seek a reduced sentence may underestimate the actual number of such
offenders.
28
(F) the offender’s original sentence was greater than the minimum of the
amended guideline range, unless the offender received a departure for
substantial assistance when originally sentenced.
52
2. Eligibility for Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment
Regarding Status Points
Staff have assumed that the effective date of retroactivity for Part B, Subpart 1 of the
2023 criminal history amendment would be November 1, 2023.
53
Further, we assumed that
the courts would resentence offenders in a manner that is consistent with the Guidelines
Manual in effect as of November 1, 2023.
A case was determined to be eligible for retroactive application of Part B, Subpart 1 of
the amendment if it met the following criteria:
(A) the offender was assigned zero criminal history points under USSG
§4A1.1(a–e) when initially sentenced;
(B) the offender was not excluded by any of the eligibility criteria of Part B,
Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment,
54
as follows –
(1) the court did not apply the adjustment at USSG §3A1.4
(Terrorism) for any guideline calculation in connection with the
offense;
(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in
connection with the offense (see Appendix A);
55
(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury (see
Appendix B);
56
52
See USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum
of the amended guideline range.). There were 4,299 cases excluded from the analysis based on this assumption.
Although the term of imprisonment in those cases was based on a sentencing range that would be lowered by Part A
of the 2023 criminal history amendment, the original sentence imposed is equal to or less than the minimum of the
amended guideline range. In none of those cases did the court grant a departure for substantial assistance to the
government.
53
Should the Commission decide to make Part B of the 2023 criminal history amendment retroactive, it will also
specify the date on which that part of the amendment may be applied retroactively.
54
See supra, at Part IB of this memorandum, for a discussion of these eligibility criteria.
55
The Commission’s methodology for determining which offenders were excluded by this eligibility criterion for
the purpose of this estimate is detailed in Appendix A. That methodology should not be considered as the
Commission’s interpretation of how this criterion should be applied in all cases. The courts may apply this
eligibility criterion differently.
56
The Commission’s methodology for determining which offenders were excluded by this by this eligibility
criterion for the purpose of this estimate is detailed in Appendix B. That methodology should not be considered as
29
(4) no count of conviction was a sex offense (see Appendix C);
57
(5) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial
hardship (see Appendix D);
58
(6) the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport,
transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with
the offense (see Appendix E);
59
(7) the court did not apply any of the guidelines in USSG Chapter 2,
Part H, Subpart 1 in connection with the offense;
(8) the court did not apply the adjustment under USSG §3A1.1 (Hate
Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or the adjustment under
USSG §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense) for any guideline
calculation in connection with the offense;
(9) the court did not apply the adjustment under USSG §3B1.1
(Aggravating Role) for any guideline calculation in connection
with the offense; and
(10) no count of conviction was 21 U.S.C. § 848;
(C) the offender’s original sentence was greater than any applicable statutory
mandatory minimum punishment, unless the offender received relief from the
mandatory minimum punishment pursuant to the statutory safety valve
60
or
the offender received a departure for substantial assistance
61
when originally
sentenced;
62
and
the Commission’s interpretation of how this criterion should be applied in all cases. The courts may apply this
eligibility criterion differently.
57
The Commission’s methodology for determining which offenders were excluded by this by this eligibility
criterion for the purpose of this estimate is detailed in Appendix C. That methodology should not be considered as
the Commission’s interpretation of how this criterion should be applied in all cases. The courts may apply this
eligibility criterion differently.
58
The Commission’s methodology for determining which offenders were excluded by this eligibility criterion for
the purpose of this estimate is detailed in Appendix D. That methodology should not be considered as the
Commission’s interpretation of how this criterion should be applied in all cases. The courts may apply this
eligibility criterion differently.
59
The Commission’s methodology for determining which offenders were excluded by this eligibility criterion for
the purpose of this estimate is detailed in Appendix E. That methodology should not be considered as the
Commission’s interpretation of how this criterion should be applied in all cases. The courts may apply this
eligibility criterion differently.
60
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
61
18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); USSG §5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities).
62
Offenders sentenced at the applicable mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, who did not receive relief
under the statutory safety valve or who did not receive a substantial assistance departure were excluded because
their sentence cannot be reduced below the existing mandatory minimum punishment despite a reduction in their
guideline level based on the amendment. These offenders were originally sentenced to the shortest sentence of
imprisonment available to the court, the statutory minimum for the offense.
30
(D) the offender’s original sentence was greater than the minimum of the
amended guideline range, unless the offender received a departure for
substantial assistance when originally sentenced.
63
3. Other assumptions
For purposes of this analysis, staff also assumed that:
• the BOP population incarcerated on November 1, 2023 will be substantially
similar to that incarcerated on January 28, 2023;
• the sentence for each offender would be reduced based on the maximum good
conduct credit allowed by the BOP;
64
• offenders would serve the lesser of the newly calculated sentence or their life
expectancies; and
• courts would apply the criminal history amendment in accordance with section
1B1.10 as amended by the 2023 amendment to that policy statement.
The Commission’s data do not reflect any reduction in sentence that may have occurred after the date of the
original sentence, for example, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) based on an offender's
substantial assistance to the government. Under this rule, the court may sentence an offender below any otherwise
applicable mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Therefore, an offender who received a sentence reduction
pursuant to Rule 35(b) would be eligible to seek a reduced sentence under the amendment if it were to be made
retroactive (assuming all other criteria above are met). Commission data do not include the information necessary to
determine which offenders originally sentenced at a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment receive a reduced
sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) after the original sentence was imposed. Therefore, staff’s estimate of the number
of offenders who appear to be eligible to seek a reduced sentence may underestimate the actual number of such
offenders.
63
See USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum
of the amended guideline range.). There were 4,248 cases excluded from the analysis based on this assumption.
Although the term of imprisonment in those cases was based on a sentencing range that would be lowered by Part B
of the 2023 criminal history amendment, the original sentence imposed is equal to or less than the minimum of the
amended guideline range. In none of those cases did the court grant a departure for substantial assistance to the
government.
64
The First Step Act of 2018 provides eligible inmates the opportunity to earn time credits for successful
participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d). The
time credits can be applied toward earlier placement in pre-release custody, such as in residential re-entry centers
and home confinement, or earlier transfer to supervised release (i.e., early satisfaction of the inmate’s term of
imprisonment). 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g). The Commission has no data with which to estimate whether and to what
extent offenders may earn these time credits after November 1, 2023. Some offenders who do may be released
under their current sentence prior to the release date used for this analysis. In such cases, the staff’s estimate of the
extent of the impact of the retroactive application of Part A and Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history
amendment may be overstated.
31
V. CONCLUSION
The Commission staff estimates that if the Commission were to authorize the
retroactive application of the Part A of the 2023 criminal history amendment (regarding status
points), there are 11,495 offenders in BOP custody who would have a lower sentencing range
under the guidelines. If the courts were to grant the full reduction in sentence possible in
each case, the average reduction in sentence would be 11.7 percent. Approximately 2,000
offenders would be eligible for immediate release on November 1, 2023.
The Commission staff estimates that if the Commission were to authorize the
retroactive application of Part B, Subpart 1 of the 2023 criminal history amendment
(regarding zero-point offenders), there are 7,272 offenders in BOP custody, who would have
lower sentencing range under the guidelines. If the courts were to grant the full reduction in
sentence possible in each case, the average reduction in sentence would be 17.6 percent.
Approximately 1,200 offenders would be eligible for immediate release on November 1,
2023.
32
Appendix A
A defendant was determined to have used violence or credible threats of violence in connection with the offense if any of the
following applied:
1) The enhancement under §3A1.3 (Restraint of Victim) was applied for any guideline calculation in connection with the offense.
2) Any of the following guidelines were included as a guideline calculation in connection with the offense:
3) Any of the following guidelines were included as a guideline calculation in connection with the offense and resulted in the application of a
cross-reference to §2A1.4:
(1) §2A5.2
(2) §2K2.1
(3) §2K3.2
(4) §2L1.1
(5) §2L2.2
(6) §2K5.1
Guidelines Manual Part
Part A
§2A1.1
§2A1.2
§2A1.3
§2A1.5
§2A2.1
§2A2.2
§2A2.3
§2A3.1
§2A3.2
§2A5.1
§2A5.3
Part B
§2B3.1
§2B3.2
Part D
§2D1.9
Part E
§2E1.1
§2E1.2
§2E1.3
§2E1.4
§2E1.5
Part G
§2G1.2
§2G2.1
§2G2.3
§2G2.4
§2G2.6
Part H
§2H4.1
Part K
§2K1.3
§2K1.4
§2K1.7
Part M
§2M2.1
§2M2.3
§2M5.3
Part X
§2X6.1
33
4) Any of the following guidelines were included as a guideline calculation in connection with the offense and resulted in the application of a
cross-reference to §2M6.1:
(1) §2A5.2
(2) §2A6.1
5) An enhancement under any of the following Guidelines Manual provisions was applied in any guideline calculation in connection with the
offense:
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A2.2
1987
2018
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2018
(b)(2)(B) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2A2.2
2014
2018
(b)(4) Offense involved strangulation or suffocating a spouse or partner (3 levels)
2A3.1
1987
2018
(b)(5) Victim abducted (4 levels)
2A3.4
2004
2018
(a)(1) If offense committed by means in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b) (Base offense level 20)
2A4.1
1987
2018
(b)(3) Dangerous weapon used (2 levels)
2A4.1
1991
2003
(b)(5) Victim sexually exploited (3 levels)
2A4.1
2003
2018
(b)(5) Victim sexually exploited (6 levels)
2A4.1
1991
2018
(b)(7)(A) Kidnapped in connection with another offense (Offense level from applicable guideline with an
adjustment for kidnapping)
2A4.1
1991
2018
(b)(7)(B) Kidnapped in connection with another crime (Offense level from applicable guideline, plus 4 levels,
no greater than level 43)
2A5.1
1987
2018
(b)(1) Death resulting from act (5 levels)
2A5.2
1987
2018
(a)(1)(A) Intentionally endangering safety of an airport or aircraft (Base offense level 30)
2A5.2
1987
2018
(a)(1)(B) Intentionally endangering safety of a mass transportation facility or vehicle (Base offense level 30)
2A5.2
2002
2018
(b)(1)(A) and (B)(i) Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) applies, firearm discharged (5 levels, increase to level 24)
2A5.2
2002
2018
(b)(1)(A) and (B)(ii) Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) applies, dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels, increase
to level 24)
2A6.1
2009
2018
(b)(5) Convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 115, made a public threatening communication, and knew the
communication created a substantial risk to violate 18 U.S.C. § 115 (2 levels)
2A6.2
2014
2018
(b)(1)(C) Strangling, suffocating or an attempt to strangle or suffocate (2 levels)
34
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A6.2
1997
2013
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
2014
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
1997
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
1997
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
1997
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
1997
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2A6.2
2014
2018
(b)(1)(A)-(E) Violation of more than one of above (4 levels)
2B3.1
1987
1990
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (7 levels)
2B3.1
1987
1990
(b)(2)(B) Firearm or dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(B) Firearm otherwise used (6 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(D) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.1
1989
1990
(b)(2)(F) Threat of death (2 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(F) Threat of death (2 levels)
2B3.1
1987
2018
(b)(4)(A) Person abducted during offense (4 levels)
2B3.1
1987
2018
(b)(4)(B) Person physically restrained during offense (2 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(i) Firearm discharged (7 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(ii) Firearm otherwise used (6 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(iv) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(B)(i)(I) Offense involved preparation to carry out threat of death (3 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(B)(i)(III) Offense involved preparation to carry out threat of kidnaping (3 levels)
2B3.2
2003
2018
(b)(3)(B)(ii) Participants demonstrated ability to carry out a threat described in (i)(I) through (i)(V) (3 levels)
2B3.2
1987
1990
(b)(5)(A) Person abducted during offense (4 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(5)(A) Person abducted during offense (4 levels)
2B3.2
1987
1990
(b)(5)(B) Person physically restrained during offense (2 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(5)(B) Person physically restrained during offense (2 levels)
35
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2D1.1
2010
2018
(b)(2) Defendant used violence, threat of violence or directed violence (2 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(1)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(1)(B) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(3)(A) Person abducted to facilitate commission of the offense or escape (4 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(3)(B) Person physically restrained to facilitate commission or escape (2 levels)
2G1.1
1987
1999
(b)(1) Used physical force, or coercion by drugs or otherwise (4 levels)
2G1.1
2000
2001
(b)(1) Involved prostitution and use of physical force, or coercion by threats or drugs (4 levels)
2G1.1
2002
2003
(b)(1) Involved a commercial sex act and use of physical force, fraud, or coercion (4 levels)
2G1.3
2007
2018
(a)(1) Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1) (Base offense level 34)
2G2.1
2004
2018
(b)(2)(A) Offense involved the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact (2 levels)
2G2.1
2004
2018
(b)(2)(B) Offense involved the commission of a sexual act and conduct as described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or
(b) (4 levels)
2G2.1
2016
2018
(b)(4)(B) Offense involved portrayal of an infant or toddler (4 levels)
2G2.2
2004
2018
(b)(5) Defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual exploitation of a minor (5 levels)
2H1.1
1995
2018
(a)(3)(A) Offense involved use/threat of force (Base Offense Level 10)
2H2.1
1987
2018
(a)(1) Obstruction occurred by use of force or threat against persons or property (Base offense level 18)
2H4.1
1997
2000
(b)(2)(A) Dangerous weapon used (2 levels)
2H4.1
2001
2018
(b)(2)(A) Dangerous weapon used (4 levels)
2J1.2
1987
2006
(b)(1)(B) Causing/threatening physical injury to a person or damage to property (8 levels)
2J1.2
2007
2018
(b)(1)(B) Causing/threatening physical injury to a person or damage to property (8 levels)
2J1.3
1987
2018
(b)(1) Suborned perjury by causing/threatening physical injury to a person or property (8 levels)
2K1.4
2007
2018
(a)(1)(B) Destruction or attempted destruction of a dwelling, airport, aircraft, mass transportation
facility/vehicle, maritime facility, vessel, vessel's cargo, a public transportation system, state/government
facility, infrastructure facility, or a place of public use (Base offense Level 24)
2K1.4
2007
2018
(a)(2)(B) Destruction or attempted destruction of a structure other than a dwelling, airport, aircraft, mass
transportation facility/vehicle, maritime facility, vessel, vessel's cargo, a public transportation system,
state/government facility, infrastructure facility, or a place of public use (Base offense level 20)
36
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2K1.4
2007
2018
(a)(2)(C) Endangered a dwelling or a structure other than a dwelling, airport, aircraft, mass transportation
facility/vehicle, maritime facility, vessel, vessel's cargo, a public transportation system, state/government
facility, infrastructure facility, or a place of public use (Base offense level 20)
2K2.1
1991
2005
(b)(6)(B) Firearms/ammunition used in connection with another felony offense (4 levels, increase to level 18)
2K2.1
2006
2010
(b)(6)(B) Firearms/ammunition used in connection with another felony offense (4 levels, increase to level 18)
2K2.1
2011
2018
(b)(6)(B) Firearms/ammunition used in connection with another felony offense (4 levels, increase to level 18)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(5)(A) Firearm discharged (6 levels, increase to level 22)
2L1.1
2007
2018
(b)(5)(A) Firearm discharged (6 levels, increase to level 22)
2M2.1
1993
2018
§2M2.1 Destruction of, or Production of Defective, War Material, Premises, or Utilities
2M2.3
1987
1992
§2M2.3 Destruction of National Defense Material, Premises, or Utilities
2M2.3
1993
2018
§2M2.3 Destruction of, or Production of Defective, National Defense Material, Premises, or Utilities
2M2.3
1987
2018
(a) Base offense level 26
2M5.3
2002
2002
§2M5.3 Providing Material Support or Resources to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
2M5.3
2003
2006
§2M5.3 Providing Material Support or Resources to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations or For a
Terrorist Purpose
2M5.3
2007
2018
§2M5.3 Providing Material Support or Resources to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations or Specially
Designated Global Terrorists, or For a Terrorist Purpose
2M6.1
2001
2001
(a)(4)(B) Involved a threat to use a nuclear weapon/material/by-product, chemical weapon, biological
agent/toxin, or delivery system, or a weapon of mass destruction, but did not involve any conduct evidencing
intent or ability to carry out threat (Base offense level 20)
2P1.1
1987
2018
(b)(1) Involved use of or threat of force against any person (5 levels)
2T1.9
1987
2018
(b)(1) Involved the planned or threatened use of violence (4 levels)
37
Appendix B
An offense was determined to result in death or serious bodily injury if any of the following applied:
1) Any of the following Guidelines Manual provisions were applied in applied in any guideline calculation in connection with the offense:
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A2.1
1990
2018
(b)(1)(A) Permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2A2.1
1990
2018
(b)(1)(B) Serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2A2.1
1990
2018
(b)(1)(C) Between permanent/life-threatening and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2003
(b)(3)(A) Bodily injury (2 levels)
2A2.2
2004
2018
(b)(3)(A) Bodily injury (3 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2003
(b)(3)(B) Serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2A2.2
2004
2018
(b)(3)(B) Serious bodily injury (5 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2003
(b)(3)(C) Permanent or life-threatening injury (6 levels)
2A2.2
2004
2018
(b)(3)(C) Permanent or life-threatening injury (7 levels)
2A2.2
1989
2003
(b)(3)(D) Between serious and “simple” bodily injury (3 levels)
2A2.2
2004
2018
(b)(3)(D) Between serious and “simple” bodily injury (4 levels)
2A2.2
1989
2003
(b)(3)(E) Between permanent/life-threatening and serious bodily injury (5 levels)
2A2.2
2004
2018
(b)(3)(E) Between permanent/life-threatening and serious bodily injury (6 levels)
2A2.3
2004
2018
(b)(1)(A) Bodily injury to victim (2 levels)
2A2.3
1995
2003
(b)(1)(B) Substantial bodily injury to victim under age of 16 (4 levels)
2A2.3
2004
2013
(b)(1)(B) Substantial bodily injury to victim under age of 16 (4 levels)
2A2.3
2014
2018
(b)(1)(B) Substantial bodily injury to partner or victim under age of 16 (4 levels)
2A2.4
2004
2018
(b)(1)(A) Physical Contact
2A3.1
1987
2018
(b)(4)(A) Permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2A3.1
1987
2018
(b)(4)(B) Serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2A3.1
1989
2018
(b)(4)(C) Between permanent/life-threatening and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
38
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A4.1
1987
2018
(b)(2)(A) Victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2A4.1
1987
2018
(b)(2)(B) Serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2A4.1
1989
2018
(b)(2)(C) Between permanent or life-threatening and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2A6.2
1997
2018
(b)(1)(B) Bodily injury (2 levels)
2B1.1
2001
2003
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2004
2007
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2008
2010
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2011
2012
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2013
2016
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2018
2018
(b)(16)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of death/serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B3.1
1987
2018
(b)(3)(A) Bodily injury occurred (2 levels)
2B3.1
1987
2018
(b)(3)(B) Serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2B3.1
1987
2018
(b)(3)(C) Permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2B3.1
1989
2018
(b)(3)(D) Between bodily and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2B3.1
1989
2018
(b)(3)(E) Between serious and permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (5 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(1) Express or implied threat of death, bodily injury or kidnaping (2 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) Offense involved preparation to carry out threat of serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2B3.2
1987
1990
(b)(4)(A) Bodily injury occurred (2 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(4)(A) Bodily injury occurred (2 levels)
2B3.2
1987
1990
(b)(4)(B) Serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(4)(B) Serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2B3.2
1987
1990
(b)(4)(C) Permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(4)(C) Permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2B3.2
1989
1990
(b)(4)(D) Between bodily and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(4)(D) Between bodily and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2B3.2
1989
1990
(b)(4)(E) Between serious and permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (5 levels)
39
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(4)(E) Between serious and permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (5 levels)
2B5.3
2000
2004
(b)(6)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.3
2005
2008
(b)(6)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.3
2009
2012
(b)(6)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B5.3
2013
2018
(b)(6)(A) Conscious/reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2D1.1
1987
1988
(a)(1) Offense that results in death or serious bodily injury with a prior conviction for a similar drug offense (
Base offense level 43)
2D1.1
1989
2018
(a)(1) Convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) or 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3) and conviction establishes death/serious bodily injury after more than one prior conviction for similar
offense (Base offense level 43)
2D1.1
1987
1988
(a)(2) Offense that results in death or serious bodily injury and involved controlled substances (except
Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances and less than: (A) fifty kilograms of marihuana,(B) ten
kilograms of hashish, and (C) one kilogram of hashish oil) (Base offense level 38)
2D1.1
1989
2018
(a)(2) Convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) or 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3) and conviction establishes death/serious bodily injury (Base offense level 38)
2D1.1
2009
2018
(a)(3) Convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(E) or 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(5) and conviction establishes
death/serious bodily injury after more than one prior conviction for similar offense (Base offense level 30)
2D1.1
2009
2018
(a)(4) Convicted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(E) or 960(b)(5) and conviction establishes death/serious
bodily injury resulted from use of substance (Base offense level 26)
2D2.3
1989
2018
(a)(1) Death resulted (Base Offense Level 26)
2D2.3
1989
2018
(a)(2) Serious bodily injury resulted (Base Offense Level 21)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(2)(A) Bodily injury (2 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(2)(B) Serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(2)(C) Permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2E2.1
1989
2018
(b)(2)(D) Between bodily injury and serious bodily injury (3 levels)
2E2.1
1989
2018
(b)(2)(E) Between serious bodily injury and permanent/life-threatening injury (5 levels)
2F1.1
1989
1997
(b)(7)(A) Involved conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2F1.1
1998
1999
(b)(7)(A) Involved conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2F1.1
2000
2000
(b)(7)(A) Involved conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily injury (2 levels, increase to level 13)
40
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2H4.1
1997
2018
(b)(1)(A) Victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2H4.1
1997
2018
(b)(1)(B) Victim sustained serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2H4.2
2001
2018
(b)(1)(A) Involved serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2H4.2
2001
2018
(b)(1)(B) Involved bodily injury (2 levels)
2K1.4
1990
2018
(a)(1)(A) Knowingly created substantial risk of death/serious bodily injury (Base offense Level 24)
2K1.4
1990
2018
(a)(2)(A) Substantial risk of death/serious bodily injury (Base offense level 20)
2K3.2
1990
2018
(a)(2) Death resulted, apply the most analogous offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A, Subpart 1
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(6) Intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person
(2 levels, increase to level 18)
2L1.1
2007
2018
(b)(6) Intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person
(2 levels, increase to level 18)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(7)(A) Person sustained bodily injury (2 levels)
2L1.1
2006
2018
(b)(7)(A) Person sustained bodily injury (2 levels)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(7)(B) Person sustained serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2L1.1
2006
2018
(b)(7)(B) Person sustained serious bodily injury (4 levels)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(7)(C) Person sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2L1.1
2006
2018
(b)(7)(C) Person sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (6 levels)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(7)(D) Person died (8 levels)
2L1.1
2006
2018
(b)(7)(D) Person died (10 levels)
2M6.1
2001
2001
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(i) Subsection (a)(2) applies and any victim died or sustained permanent life-threatening
bodily injury (4 levels)
2M6.1
2002
2002
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(i) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4) applies and any victim died or sustained permanent life-
threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2M6.1
2003
2018
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(i) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4)(A) applies and any victim died or sustained permanent
life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2M6.1
2001
2001
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(ii) Subsection (a)(2) applies and any victim sustained serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2M6.1
2002
2002
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(ii) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4) applies and any victim sustained serious bodily injury
(2 levels)
41
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2M6.1
2003
2018
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(ii) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4)(A) applies and any victim sustained serious bodily
injury (2 levels)
2M6.1
2001
2001
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(iii) Subsection (a)(2) applies and the degree of injury of any victim is between that
specified in (B)(i) and (B)(ii) (3 levels)
2M6.1
2002
2002
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(iii) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4) applies and the degree of injury of any victim is
between that specified in (B)(i) and (B)(ii) (3 levels)
2M6.1
2003
2018
(b)(2)(A) and (B)(iii) Subsection (a)(2),(a)(3), or (a)(4)(A) applies and the degree of injury of any victim is
between that specified in (B)(i) and (B)(ii) (3 levels)
2N1.1
1991
2018
(b)(1)(A) Victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2N1.1
1991
2018
(b)(1)(B) Victim sustained serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2N1.1
1991
2018
(b)(1)(C) Degree of injury victim sustained between that specified in subdivisions (A) and (B) (3 levels)
2Q1.2
1987
2018
(b)(2) Resulted in substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury (9 levels)
2Q1.3
1987
2018
(b)(2) Resulted in substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury (11 levels)
2Q1.4
2003
2018
(b)(1)(A) Victim sustained permanent/life-threatening bodily injury (4 levels)
2Q1.4
2003
2018
(b)(1)(B) Victim sustained serious bodily injury (2 levels)
2Q1.4
2003
2018
(b)(1)(C) The degree of injury victim sustained is between subdivisions (A) and (B) (3 levels)
42
Appendix C
The offense of conviction was a sex offense if any of the following applied:
1) An enhancement under §4B1.5 (Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offenders Against Minors) was applied for any guideline calculation in
connection with the offense.
2) Any offense of conviction was:
Offense of Conviction
Title 18
§ 1591
§ 2241
§ 2242
§ 2243(a)
§ 2243(b)
§ 2244
§ 2245
§ 2251
§ 2251A
§ 2252
§ 2252A
§ 2252B
§ 2260
§ 2260A
§ 2423
§ 2421A
3) Any of the following guidelines were applied in connection with the offense:
Guidelines Manual Part
Part A
§2A3.4
Part G
§2G1.2
§2G1.3
§2G2.1
§2G2.2
§2G2.3
§2G2.4
§2G2.6
4) An enhancement under any of the following Guidelines Manual provisions was applied in any guideline calculation in connection with the
offense:
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2G1.1
1996
1999
(b)(2)(A) Victim less than 12 years of age (9 levels)
2G1.1
2000
2003
(b)(2)(A) Victim less than 12 years of age (4 levels)
2G1.1
1996
1999
(b)(2)(B) Victim at least 12 years of age but less than 16 (7 levels)
2G1.1
2000
2003
(b)(2)(B) Victim at least 12 years of age but less than 16 (2 levels)
2G1.1
1996
1999
(b)(2)(C) Victim at least 16 years of age but less than 18 (5 levels)
2G1.1
2000
2003
(b)(5)(A) Computer was used to facilitate travel of a minor to engage in prostitution (2 levels)
43
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2G1.1
2000
2003
(b)(5)(B) Computer was used to solicit a person to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor (2
levels)
44
Appendix D
A defendant was determined to have personally caused substantial financial hardship in connection with the offense if any of
the following applied:
1) An enhancement under any of the following Guidelines Manual provisions was applied in any guideline calculation in connection with the
offense:
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2B1.1
2015
2018
(b)(2)(A)(iii) Resulted in financial hardship to one or more victims (2 levels)
2B1.1
2015
2018
(b)(2)(B) Resulted in financial hardship to five or more victims (4 levels)
2B1.1
2015
2018
(b)(2)(C) Resulted in financial hardship to 25 or more victims (6 levels)
2B1.1
2018
2018
(b)(17)(B)(i) Jeopardized the safety and soundness of financial institution (4 levels, increase to level 24)
2F1.1
1990
1997
(b)(8)(A) Substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution (4 levels, increase to
level 24)
2F1.1
1998
1999
(b)(8)(A) Substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution (4 levels, increase to
level 24)
2F1.1
2000
2000
(b)(8)(A) Substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution (4 levels, increase to
level 24)
45
Appendix E
A defendant was determined to have possessed, received, purchased, transported, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of a
firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induced another participant to do so) in connection with the offense, if any of the following
applied:
1) Any count of conviction was 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
2) The enhancement under §4B1.4 (Armed Career Criminal) was applied in connection with the offense.
3) Any of the following guidelines were applied in connection with the offense:
Guidelines Manual Part
Part K
§2K1.3
§2K1.4
§2K1.5
§2K1.7
§2K2.1
§2K2.2
§2K2.3
§2K2.4
§2K2.5
Part M
§2M2.2
§2M5.1
§2M5.2
§2M6.1
4) An enhancement under any of the following Guidelines Manual provisions was applied in any guideline calculation in connection with the
offense:
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A2.2
1987
2018
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2018
(b)(2)(B) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2A2.2
1987
2018
(b)(2)(C) Dangerous weapon brandished or threatened (3 levels)
2A2.4
2004
2018
(b)(1)(B) Dangerous weapon possessed/threatened (3 levels)
2A4.1
1987
2018
(b)(3) Dangerous weapon used (2 levels)
2A5.2
2002
2018
(b)(1)(A) and (B)(i) Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) applies, firearm discharged (5 levels, increase to level 24)
2A5.2
2002
2018
(b)(1)(A) and (B)(ii) Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) applies, dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels, increase
to level 24)
46
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2A5.2
2002
2018
(b)(1)(A) and (B)(iii) Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) applies, weapon brandished/threatened (3 levels, increase to
level 24)
2A6.2
1997
2013
(b)(1)(D) Possession, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon (2 levels)
2A6.2
2014
2018
(b)(1)(D) Possession, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon (2 levels)
2B1.1
2001
2003
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2004
2007
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2008
2010
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2011
2012
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2013
2016
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.1
2018
2018
(b)(16)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B1.5
2002
2018
(b)(6) Dangerous weapon brandished/threatened (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B2.1
1987
2018
(b)(4) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels)
2B2.2
1987
1992
(b)(4) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels)
2B2.3
1987
2018
(b)(2) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels)
2B3.1
1987
1990
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(A) Firearm discharged (7 levels)
2B3.1
1987
1990
(b)(2)(B) Firearm or dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(B) Firearm otherwise used (6 levels)
2B3.1
1987
1990
(b)(2)(C) Firearm or other dangerous weapon brandished or possessed (3 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(C) Firearm brandished or possessed (5 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(D) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.1
1991
2018
(b)(2)(E) Dangerous weapon brandished or possessed (3 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(i) Firearm discharged (7 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(ii) Firearm otherwise used (6 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(iii) Firearm brandished or possessed (5 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(iv) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(A)(v) Dangerous weapon brandished or possessed (3 levels)
47
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2B3.2
1991
2018
(b)(3)(B)(i)(IV) Offense involved preparation to carry out threat of product tampering (3 levels)
2B3.2
2003
2018
(b)(3)(B)(i)(V) Offense involved preparation to carry out threat of damage to a computer system used to
maintain critical infrastructure (3 levels)
2B5.1
1995
2000
(b)(4) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.1
2001
2018
(b)(4) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.3
2000
2004
(b)(6)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.3
2005
2008
(b)(6)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2B5.3
2009
2012
(b)(6)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2B5.3
2013
2018
(b)(6)(B) Possession of a dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 14)
2D1.1
1987
2018
(b)(1) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels)
2D1.11
1991
2018
(b)(1) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(1)(A) Firearm discharged (5 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(1)(B) Dangerous weapon otherwise used (4 levels)
2E2.1
1987
2018
(b)(1)(C) Dangerous weapon brandished or possessed (3 levels)
2F1.1
1995
1997
(b)(7)(B) Possession of dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2F1.1
1998
1999
(b)(7)(B) Possession of dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2F1.1
2000
2000
(b)(7)(B) Possession of dangerous weapon (2 levels, increase to level 13)
2H4.1
1997
2000
(b)(2)(A) Dangerous weapon used (2 levels)
2H4.1
2001
2018
(b)(2)(A) Dangerous weapon used (4 levels)
2H4.1
2001
2018
(b)(2)(B) Dangerous weapon brandished or threatened (2 levels)
2K1.3
1991
2002
(b)(3)(B) Use/possession of explosive material in connection with another felony offense (4 levels, increase to
level 18)
2K1.3
2003
2018
(b)(3)(B) Use/possession of explosive material in connection with another felony offense (4 levels, increase to
level 18)
2K2.5
1989
1990
§2K2.5 Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities
2K2.5
1991
2018
§2K2.5 Possession of Firearm or Dangerous Weapon in Federal Facility; Possession or Discharge of Firearm in
School Zone
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(5)(A) Firearm discharged (6 levels, increase to level 22)
48
Chapter
Two
Guideline
Guidelines
Manual
Year
Start
Guidelines
Manual
Year
End
Guidelines Manual Part
2L1.1
2007
2018
(b)(5)(A) Firearm discharged (6 levels, increase to level 22)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(5)(B) Dangerous weapon brandished or otherwise used (4 levels, increase to level 20)
2L1.1
2007
2018
(b)(5)(B) Dangerous weapon brandished or otherwise used (4 levels, increase to level 20)
2L1.1
1997
2005
(b)(5)(C) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels, increase to level 18)
2L1.1
2007
2018
(b)(5)(C) Dangerous weapon possessed (2 levels, increase to level 18)
2M6.1
2002
2018
(a)(3) Convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 175b (Base offense level 22)
2M6.1
2002
2002
(a)(4) Convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 175(b) (Base offense level 20)
2M6.1
2003
2018
(a)(4)(A) Convicted under 18 U.S.C. §175(b) (Base offense level 20)
2M6.1
2002
2002
(a)(4)(B) Involved a threat to use a nuclear weapon/material/by-product, chemical weapon, biological
agent/toxin, or delivery system, or a weapon of mass destruction, but did not involve any conduct evidencing
intent or ability to carry out threat (Base offense level 20)
2M6.1
2003
2018
(a)(4)(B) Involved a threat to use a nuclear weapon/material/by-product, chemical weapon, biological
agent/toxin, or delivery system, or a weapon of mass destruction, but did not involve any conduct evidencing
intent or ability to carry out threat (Base offense level 20)
2P1.2
1987
2018
(a)(1) A firearm or destructive device (Base offense level 23)
2P1.2
1987
1994
(a)(2) A weapon (other than firearm/destructive device), object to be used as a weapon or as a means of escape,
ammunition, LSD, PCP, or a narcotic drug (Base offense level 13)
2P1.2
1995
2018
(a)(2) A weapon (other than firearm/destructive device), object to be used as a weapon or as a means of escape,
ammunition, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine, or a narcotic drug (Base offense level 13)
