Youthful Offenders in the Federal System

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov

William H. Pryor, Jr. 

Acting Chair

Rachel E. Barkow

Commissioner

Charles R. Breyer

Commissioner

Danny C. Reeves

Commissioner

J. Patricia Wilson Smoot

Ex Officio

Jonathan J. Wroblewski

Ex Officio

Kenneth P. Cohen 

Staff Director

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

May 2017


Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction..................................................................................................

Key Findings............................................................................................

Youthful Offenders, Sentencing Guidelines, and Policy...................

II. Background..................................................................................................

Age, Criminal Culpability and Case Law............................................

III. Methodology................................................................................................

Methodology for Analysis of Career Offenders..................................

Methodology for Analysis of Offenses Committed Prior to Age 18.

IV. Offender Group............................................................................................

Demographics.......................................................................................

Youthful Offenders and District Analysis..............................................

V. Offense Types...............................................................................................

VI. Common Offenses.......................................................................................

Drug Offenses.........................................................................................

Immigration Offenses.............................................................................

Firearms Offenses...................................................................................

Offense Types for Native American Youthful Offenders...................

VII. Sentencing of Youthful Offenders..............................................................

Criminal History....................................................................................... 

Special Coding Project on the Impact of Offenses Committed 

Prior to Age 18 on Criminal History.......................................................

Sentencing Analysis...............................................................................

VIII. Other Sentencing Analysis..........................................................................

Chapter Three Adjustments..................................................................

Career Offenders and Armed Career Offenders..............................

Life Sentences........................................................................................

IX. Recidivism....................................................................................................

X. Conclusion....................................................................................................

XI. Endnotes.......................................................................................................

XII. Appendix.......................................................................................................

1

2

3

5

5

9

10

11

13

13

18

21

25

25

26

28

29

31

32

35

37

43

43

45

48

49

51

53

61
United States Sentencing Commission

ii
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

1

Youthful Offenders in the 

Federal System

Introduction

Although youthful offenders account for about 18 percent 

of all federal offenders sentenced between fiscal years 2010 

and 2015, there is little current information published about 

them. In this publication, the United States Sentencing 

Commission (“the Commission”) presents information about 

youthful offenders, who for purposes of this report are 

defined as persons age 25 or younger at the time they are 

sentenced in the federal system. 

Recent studies on brain development and age, 

coupled with recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing 

differences in offender culpability due to age, have led 

some policymakers to reconsider how youthful offenders 

should be punished. This report reviews those studies 

and provides an overview of youthful federal offenders, 

including their demographic characteristics, what type of 

offenses they were sentenced for, how they were sentenced, 

and the extent of their criminal histories.1 The report also 

discusses the intersection of neuroscience and law, and how 

this intersection has influenced the treatment of youthful 

offenders in the criminal justice system.

The Commission is releasing this report as part of its 

review of the sentencing of youthful offenders. In June 2016, 

the Commission’s Tribal Issues Advisory Group (TIAG) 

issued a report that proposed several guideline and policy 

Monica Robbers, Ph.D

Deputy Director

Office of Research & Data

Jason Grago, M.A.

Research Associate

Office of Research & Data
United States Sentencing Commission

2

changes relating to youthful offenders, including departure 

provisions and alternatives to incarceration.2 Because 

many of the TIAG recommendations on this topic apply 

to all youthful offenders, and not just Native Americans, 

the Commission voted to study the treatment of youthful 

offenders as a policy priority for the 2016-2017 amendment 

cycle.3

The key findings in this report are that:

• There were 86,309 offenders (18.0% of the federal offender population) age 

25 or younger sentenced in the federal system between 2010 and 2015.

• The majority (57.8%) of youthful offenders are Hispanic. 

• There were very few youthful offenders under the age of 18 sentenced in 

the federal system (52 between 2010 and 2015).

• Almost 92 percent of offenses committed by youthful offenders were nonviolent offenses.

• Similar to the overall federal offender population (or non-youthful 

offenders group) the most common offenses that youthful offenders 

committed were drug trafficking (30.9%), immigration (28.6%), and 

firearms offenses (13.7%).

• The average sentence for youthful offenders was 34.9 months.

• Youthful offenders were more likely to be sentenced within the guidelines 

range than non-youthful offenders (56.1% compared to 50.1%).

• Youthful offenders recidivated at a much higher rate than their older 

counterparts—about 67 percent versus 41 percent.

 Key Findings
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

3

Consideration of a defendant’s youthfulness at sentencing 

is not new. In 1950, the Youth Corrections Act4 (YCA) was 

passed to provide guidance to federal judges when sentencing 

a “young offender” under the age of 22, and a “young adult 

offender” between the ages of 22 and 26, that included 

segregation from adult offenders in prison and alternatives to 

imprisonment, such as rehabilitation and treatment.5

The YCA was repealed when Congress enacted the 

Sentencing Reform Act in 1984.6 Opponents asserted that 

youthful offenders were recidivating at higher levels than 

expected, and that segregation of offenders by age led to more 

problems in prisons, not fewer.7 While the exact number of 

youthful offenders sentenced under the YCA is unknown, at 

the time Congress repealed the YCA in 1984, over 750 federal 

prisoners were serving YCA sentences.8 The legislation that 

created the Commission, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,9

included two directives that give context to how youthful 

offenders are sentenced in the federal system. Congress 

directed the Commission, in establishing categories of 

defendants for use in the guidelines and policy statements, 

to consider whether certain enumerated factors—including a 

defendant’s age—“have any relevance to the nature, extent, 

place of service, or other incidents of an appropriate sentence, 

and shall take them into account only to the extent that they 

do have relevance.”10 Congress also gave the Commission the 

authority to “study the feasibility of developing guidelines for 

the disposition of juvenile delinquents.”11 

The Commission implemented those congressional 

directives in a number of ways that are relevant to youthful 

offenders. First, the guidelines expressly do not apply to a 

defendant sentenced under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency 

Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042).12 Nonetheless, the guidelines 

are relevant to the sentencing of such offenders because the 

sentence imposed on a juvenile delinquent generally may not 

Youthful Offenders, Sentencing Guidelines, and Policy
United States Sentencing Commission

4

exceed the maximum of the guideline range applicable to an 

otherwise similarly situated adult defendant.13

Next, the guidelines treat prior sentences for juvenile 

offenses differently than prior adult offenses in determining 

the defendant’s Criminal History Category.14 Specifically, 

if the defendant was convicted as an adult for an offense 

committed before age 18 and received a sentence exceeding 

one year and one month, the sentence is counted so long as it 

was imposed, or resulted in the defendant being incarcerated, 

within fifteen years of the defendant’s commencement of the 

instant offense.15 All other sentences for offenses committed 

prior to age 18 are counted only if the sentence was imposed 

within five years of the defendant’s commencement of the 

instant offense or within five years of the defendant’s release 

from incarceration for the offense, if the defendant was 

incarcerated for at least 60 days.16 Furthermore, certain 

offenses, including “juvenile status offenses and truancy,” 

and diversionary dispositions from juvenile court are never 

counted in a criminal history calculation.17

Finally, in a relatively recent change, the Commission 

has recognized the role youth may have at sentencing. 

Specifically, §5H1.1 provides that age—including youth—

“may be relevant in determining whether a departure 

is warranted, if considerations based on age, either 

individually or in combination with other offender 

characteristics, are present to an unusual degree and 

distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the 

guidelines. . . .”18

Until 2010, the guidelines had provided that age—

including youth—was “not ordinarily relevant” in 

determining whether a departure from the guidelines was 

warranted.19 The Commission adopted this less restrictive 

departure standard “after reviewing recent federal 

sentencing data, trial and appellate court case law, scholarly 

literature, public comment and testimony, and feedback in 

various forms from federal judges.”20
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

5

Background 

Age, Criminal Culpability, and Case Law

Traditionally, youthful offenders often have been defined 

as those under the age of 18, but for purposes of this study, 

the Commission has defined youthful offenders as federal 

offenders 25 years old or younger at the time of sentencing.21

The inclusion of young adults in the definition of youthful 

offenders is informed by recent case law and neuroscience 

research in which there is a growing recognition that people 

may not gain full reasoning skills and abilities until they 

reach age 25 on average. 

The Supreme Court first discussed the issue of age and 

culpability in Thompson v. Oklahoma22 where the Court 

prohibited the death penalty for youth under the age of 16, 

under the Eighth Amendment. The Court held that offenders 

under the age of 16 have decreased criminal culpability due 

to less education, experience, intelligence, and increased peer 

pressure than offenders over the age of 16. Later, in Atkins 

v. Virginia,

23 the Court recognized the contributing link 

between reasoning skills and brain function, and prohibited 

the death penalty for individuals with mental retardation—

even if the defendant knew the difference between right and 

wrong. 

In Roper v. Simmons,

24 the Court abolished the death 

penalty for juveniles altogether, and it is notable that the 

defendant’s claim of decreased culpability was bolstered by 

amicus briefs filed by the American Psychological Association 

(APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA). In 

Graham v. Florida,

25 the Court banned the imposition of 
United States Sentencing Commission

6

sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of 

parole (LWOP) for offenses other than murder, citing youths’ 

relative immaturity in higher order brain functioning 

as contributing to poor impulse control, diminished risk 

avoidance and underdeveloped moral reasoning.26 Two years 

later in Miller v. Alabama,

27 the Court held LWOP was 

unconstitutional for juveniles regardless of the offense. In 

2016, the Court decided this ruling was substantive, and thus 

the decision became retroactive, allowing the resentencing 

of offenders who had been sentenced as juveniles to LWOP 

prior to Miller.

28

The contribution that neuroscience has made to the study 

of youthful offending is significant and continues to evolve. 

That research has focused on the prefrontal cortex of the 

brain, which is located at the front of the frontal lobe and 

is the last part of the brain to fully develop. The prefrontal 

cortex is utilized in impulse control, emotional reactions, 

executive function and decision making.29 Development of 

the prefrontal cortex involves both biology and sociocultural 

experiences. Focusing on the biological development of 

the brain, numerous studies using Magnetic Resonance 

Imaging (MRI) of the brain show that the brain goes 

through two major processes during adolescence and into 

young adulthood: (1) synaptic pruning, which involves the 

strengthening of important or often-used neural connections, 

and the discarding of infrequently used synapses; and (2) the 

myelination of the frontal lobe, which refers to the addition 

of the myelin sheath to the axiom of neurons that allows for 

faster and more complex brain functions. Neuroscientists 

refer to the former process as the whitening of brain matter; 

pruning reduces gray brain matter. People at different 

stages of these processes have different brain structures 

and functions compared to people who have fully developed 

brains.30
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

7

Among the landmark studies in brain development is a 

2005 meta-analysis of all studies completed through 2004 

on frontal lobe development and maturation.31 The authors 

established a model of frontal lobe development to suggest 

that maturation is completed in the mid-20s. Another study 

compared frontal lobe contributions to cognitive control in 

children and adults. The results indicated clear differences 

in the ways and extent to which the frontal lobe was used 

in decision making.32 More recent studies also account for 

the confounding effect of marijuana and alcohol use on the 

adolescent brain and its development, with results indicating 

further delays in brain development among youth and young 

adults with substance use histories.33 

In light of the science discussed above, there has been 

significant debate among policymakers regarding the age at 

which a person should be held responsible for their actions 

because of different stages of brain development and this 

debate has also played out in scientific literature. However, 

there are a number of points on which researchers in this 

area generally agree. First, researchers agree that the 

prefrontal cortex is not complete by the age of 18, which 

is the legal age of majority in most state jurisdictions 

and in the federal system.34 Second, researchers agree 

that development continues into the 20s.35 Third, most 

researchers reference 25 as the average age at which 

full development has taken place, but note there will be 

significant variation from person to person.36 Finally, 

researchers caution against the over-generalization of brain 

science.
United States Sentencing Commission

8
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

9

Methodology

The Commission collects and analyzes data on federal 

sentences to support its various activities. As authorized 

by Congress, the Commission’s numerous research 

responsibilities include: (1) the establishment of a research 

and development program to serve as a clearinghouse and 

information center for the collection, preparation, and 

dissemination of information on federal sentencing practices; 

(2) the publication of data concerning the sentencing process; 

(3) the systematic collection and dissemination of information 

concerning sentences actually imposed and the relationship 

of such sentences to the factors set forth in section 3553(a) of 

title 18, United States Code; and (4) the systematic collection 

and dissemination of information regarding the effectiveness 

of sentences imposed.37

The Commission maintains a comprehensive, 

computerized data collection system which forms the basis 

for its clearinghouse of federal sentencing information and 

which contributes to the agency’s research mission. The chief 

judge of each district is required to ensure that within 30 

days of entry of judgment in a criminal case, the sentencing 

court submits a report of sentence to the Commission that 

includes: (1) the judgment and commitment order; (2) the 

written statement of reasons; (3) any plea agreement; (4) 

the indictment or charging document; (5) the presentence 

report (PSR); and (6) any other information the Commission 

requests.38
United States Sentencing Commission

10

Commission staff then extract and code data from these 

documents into various databases. It should be noted 

that this data collection process is dynamic rather than 

static. When research questions arise, the Commission 

either analyzes existing data or adds information to its data 

collection system. 

For purposes of this report, the Commission created a 

study group of all 86,309 youthful offenders sentenced from 

fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015. The dataset includes 

demographic variables, statutory information, the sentencing 

guideline decisions made by the court, the sentences imposed, 

and the reasons given for any departure or variance from 

the advisory guideline sentencing range. A “case” is defined 

as one sentencing event for an individual defendant. More 

information on the data collection process can be found in 

the Commission’s annual Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing 

Statistics.

39

Methodology for Analysis of Career Offenders

To provide a more detailed picture of the 689 youthful 

career offenders in this study group, a special coding project 

was undertaken. The criminal histories of all of these 

offenders were examined and the predicate offenses leading 

to their designation as career offenders were coded as either: 

violent offenses, drug offenses, mixed, or missing.40 If the 

PSR did not state what the predicates were, the case was 

coded as missing. Then, the cases were matched with the 

type of instant offense to determine whether the career 

offender was a violent offender, a drug offender, or mixed. 

Results from this analysis appear on page 45 of this report. 
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

11

To gain a better understanding of how juvenile 

adjudications influence criminal history calculations under 

the sentencing guidelines, the Commission undertook a 

special coding project involving youthful offenders in 2016. 

As part of that project Commission staff reviewed sentencing 

data from a 20 percent random sample of youthful offenders 

who were sentenced in fiscal year 2015 and for whom 

presentence reports were submitted to the Commission. The 

demographics of this study group of 1,987 offenders mirrored 

the demographics of the youthful offender population as a 

whole. As part of the special coding project, Commission 

staff collected information about all offenses these persons 

committed prior to the age of 18. This data included any 

contacts with law enforcement, all criminal history (whether 

juvenile adjudications or criminal convictions), and how that 

criminal history impacted the criminal history categories 

assigned to these offenders under the sentencing guidelines 

when they were sentenced for a federal offense.41 Included 

in this report on page 35 is a discussion of the results of that 

special coding project. 

Methodology for Analysis of Offenses Committed Prior to Age 18
United States Sentencing Commission

12
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

13

Offender Group

Demographics

This section describes the demographics of the youthful 

offenders studied in this report. Between 2010 and 2015, a 

total of 481,194 offenders were sentenced in federal courts 

for a felony or class A misdemeanor.42 Of these, 393,270 

were offenders over the age of 25 and 86,309 were youthful 

offenders.43 There was a steady decline in the number of 

youthful offenders sentenced each year (see Figure 1), such 

that from 2010 to 2015 there was a 26.7 percent decrease 

Figure 1. Number of Youthful Offenders Sentenced in the Federal System

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

14

in youthful offenders sentenced.44 This reflects a smaller 

decline in the federal offender population overall. Youthful 

offenders consistently made up between 17 and 20 percent 

of the total federal offender population each year during this 

time period. 

The gender makeup of youthful offenders sentenced 

mirrors that of the federal offender population as a whole. 

Eighty-six percent of youthful offenders are male (see Figure 

2).

Figure 2. Gender of Offenders Sentenced in the Federal System

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

15

Age of 

Youthful Offenders

Number of 

Youthful Offenders

Percent of 

Youthful Offenders

16 years 13 0.0%

17 years 39 0.1%

18 years 2,226 2.6%

19 years 5,800 6.7%

20 years 8,809 10.2%

21 years 10,902 12.6%

22 years 12,699 14.7%

23 years 14,355 16.6%

24 years 15,211 17.6%

25 years 16,255 18.8%

Total 86,309 100.0%

Youthful offenders sentenced in the federal system 

during this time period ranged in age from 16 to 25, with an 

average age of 22.4 years. As depicted in Table 1, only 52 

offenders aged 16 and 17 were sentenced during this time 

period.45 The number of offenders increased as offenders’ age 

increased. 

Table 1. Age of Youthful Offenders Sentenced in the Federal System 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

16

More than half (57.8%) of these offenders were Hispanic, 

21.2 percent were Black, 17.1 percent were White, and 4.0 

percent were some Other race (see Figure 3). This racial 

breakdown reflects that of the offender population as a 

whole. The citizenship of youthful offenders also reflects 

that, of the federal offender population as a whole, more than 

half (54.5%) are U.S. citizens. 

Figure 3. Race of Youthful Offenders Sentenced in the Federal System

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

17

In light of the TIAG’s recommendation to the Commission 

to study youthful offenders, the Commission also considered 

the number of Native American/Alaskan Native offenders 

in the study group.46 These offenders are usually grouped 

into the “Other race” category in Commission statistical 

compilations. Among youthful offenders sentenced in the 

federal system between 2010 and 2015, 2,219 were Native 

American or Alaskan Natives, accounting for 2.6 percent of 

all federal youthful offenders. They range in age from 17 to 

25.47 The number of Native American/Alaskan Natives by 

age compared to Non-Native races appears below in Table 2.

Age of Youthful 

Offenders

Native American/

Alaskan Natives Non-Native Races

16 years 0 13

17 years 9 30

18 years 41 2,185

19 years 168 5,632

20 years 273 8,536

21 years 349 10,553

22 years 353 12,346

23 years 338 14,017

24 years 326 14,885

25 years 362 15,893

 Total 2,219 84,090

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.

Table 2. Number of Native American/Alaskan Natives & Non-Native Races by Age

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015
United States Sentencing Commission

18

Youthful Offenders and District Analysis 

The districts with the largest number of youthful 

offenders in their caseloads were as follows: District of 

Arizona, Western District of Texas, Southern District of 

Texas, District of New Mexico, and Southern District of 

California. These frequencies are depicted in Table 3.48

Table 3. Number of Youthful Offenders Sentenced by District 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Top Five Districts Sentencing Youthful Offenders

as Number of Cases

District of Arizona

(N=11,802)

Western District of Texas

(N=10,596)

Southern District of Texas

(N=8,004)

District of New Mexico

(N=5,792)

Southern District of California

(N=5,582)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

19

The districts with the highest proportion of their overall 

caseload comprising youthful offenders were: District of 

Arizona (26.4%), District of New Mexico (25.7%), District of 

South Dakota (25.5%), Eastern District of Virginia (23.2%), 

and the District of Puerto Rico (23.0%). Table 4 depicts the 

proportion of cases and the frequency. 

Table 4. Proportion of Youthful Offenders Sentenced by District

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Top Five Districts Sentencing Youthful Offenders

as Proportion of Cases

District of Arizona

26.4%

(N=11,802)

District of New Mexico

25.7%

(N=5,792)

District of South Dakota

25.5%

(N=718)

Eastern District of Virginia

23.2%

(N=2,518)

District of Puerto Rico

23.0%

(N=1,836)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

20
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

21

Offense Types

This section describes the offense types most commonly 

committed by youthful offenders sentenced in the federal 

system and compares these offense types to offenses 

committed by older offenders. 

The most common offenses committed by all offenders in 

the federal system are drug offenses, immigration offenses, 

firearms offenses, and fraud offenses. That pattern is also 

seen with youthful offenders. The most common offense 

types among youthful offenders are drug trafficking (30.9%), 

followed by immigration (28.6%), firearms (13.7%), fraud 

(5.4%), and simple drug possession offenses (5.2%). Youthful 

offenders were also sentenced for more serious crimes 

such as murder (0.1%), manslaughter (0.1%), kidnapping 

(0.1%), sexual abuse (0.7%), assault (1.3%), robbery (1.2%), 

burglary (0.2%), extortion and racketeering (1.3%), and 

child pornography (1.4%). Figure 4 depicts the main offense 

categories for youthful offenders. A complete table of offense 

types for youthful offenders can be found in Table A-2 of the 

Appendix. 
United States Sentencing Commission

22

Figure 4. Youthful Offenders in Each Primary Offense Category 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

There were some differences found in the top five 

categories of offense types for youthful offenders compared 

to all other offenders (26 years of age and older). For 

example, firearms offenses and simple drug possession 

offenses were more common among youthful offenders than 

older offenders.49 Figure 5 depicts the main offense type 

comparisons between the two groups. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

23

The vast majority (91.9%) of the federal offenses 

committed by youthful offenders in this study were nonviolent, which is similar to the rate of non-violent offenses 

committed by older offenders (95.8%).50

Figure 5. Offense Type Comparisons for Youthful & All Other Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

24
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

25

Common Offenses

The following subsections examine the three most 

common offenses for youthful offenders in more detail.

Drug Offenses

As discussed earlier, the most common offenses for 

youthful offenders sentenced during 2010 to 2015 were 

drug offenses.51 The most common drug involved in these 

offenses was marijuana (39.6% of cases). This was followed 

by methamphetamine, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and 

heroin. Table 5 depicts these frequencies. 

Table 5. Drug Type Among Youthful Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Drug Type Number Percent

Powder Cocaine 4,709 15.7%

Crack Cocaine 3,577 11.9%

Heroin 2,556 8.5%

Marijuana 11,929 39.6%

Methamphetamine 5,523 18.4%

Listed Chemicals 144 0.5%

Other 1,658 5.5%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

26

Marijuana was the most common drug among youthful 

offenders, whereas powder cocaine was the most common 

among older offenders. The second most common drug 

among youthful offenders was methamphetamine, while 

marijuana was second among older offenders. Powder 

cocaine was the third most common drug type among 

youthful offenders and methamphetamine was third among 

older offenders. Frequencies for drug type among other 

offenders is in Table 6. 

Table 6. Drug Type Among All Other Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Drug Type Number Percent

Powder Cocaine 27,483 23.7%

Crack Cocaine 15,622 13.5%

Heroin 10,280 8.9%

Marijuana 26,854 23.2%

Methamphetamine 26,236 22.7%

Listed Chemicals 1,113 1.0%

Other 8,222 7.1%

Immigration Offenses

The second most common offense among youthful 

offenders was immigration offenses. The most common 

immigration offense was illegal reentry (74.3% of 

immigration cases).52 The second most common immigration 

offense committed by youthful offenders was alien 

smuggling (19.8%). Less than one percent of youthful 

offenders were sentenced for an offense involving the 

trafficking in immigration documents, and 5.4 percent of 

youthful offenders were sentenced for an offense involving 

fraudulently acquiring immigration documents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

27

Among older offenders, the most common immigration 

offense was illegal reentry, accounting for more than 85 

percent of all immigration cases for this group. The second 

most common immigration offense for older offenders 

was alien smuggling (8.9%), followed by fraudulently 

acquiring immigration documents (4.9%), and trafficking in 

immigration documents (less than 1%). The frequencies for 

both groups appear in Figure 6. 

Figure 6. Immigration Offenses for Youthful & All Other Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

28

Firearms Offenses

Approximately 14 percent of youthful offenders were 

convicted of a firearms offense, including offenses described 

in Part K of the Guidelines Manual or a violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c). Of all youthful offenders, 9.6 percent 

were sentenced under Part K of the Guidelines Manual.

53 

These offenses ranged from unlawful receipt, possession or 

transportation of firearms to possession or discharge of a 

firearm on school property. 

Of all youthful offenders, 4.7 percent were convicted of 

violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which applies to the possession, 

brandishing, or discharge of a firearm during and in relation 

to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. This is 

almost double the percentage of section 924(c) offenders 

among older offenders (2.5%). Offenders convicted under 

section 924(c) are generally subject to a mandatory minimum 

penalty of five, seven, or ten years, which must be imposed 

consecutively to any other punishment imposed for the 

underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. The 

vast majority (92.0%) of youthful offenders who received a 

section 924(c) sentence were convicted of one count of section 

924(c). However, there were 325 youthful offenders (0.4% 

of all youthful offenders) who were convicted of two or more 

counts. Offenders convicted of second or subsequent counts 

under section 924(c) are subject to consecutive mandatory 

minimum penalties of 25 years or longer. 
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

29

The federal government has unique jurisdiction over 

offenses involving Native Americans in Indian Country. 

Specifically, the federal government has jurisdiction 

exclusive of the states over crimes committed in Indian 

Country by or against Native Americans54 and over major 

felonies committed in Indian Country by a Native American 

against another Native American or other person.55 In some 

states (Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, 

and Wisconsin, and others that opt in), jurisdiction over such 

crimes has been transferred from the federal government 

to the state government pursuant to Public Law 83–280 

(commonly referred to as “PL 280”).56 Those PL 280 states 

have jurisdiction exclusive of the federal government 

over crimes committed by or against Native Americans in 

specified areas in Indian Country within their respective 

state.57 

In light of these unique jurisdictional provisions 

regarding crimes that occur in Indian Country, and given 

the TIAG’s recommendation to study youthful offenders, the 

Commission separately examined the offenses committed 

by Native American/Alaskan Native youthful offenders.58 

The most common offense type among Native American/ /

Alaskan Native youthful offenders was assault (29.4%), 

followed by drug trafficking (12.9%), sexual abuse (11.9%), 

firearms (9.4%), and manslaughter offenses (5.1%). Among 

older Native American/Alaskan Native offenders, the most 

common offense type was drug trafficking (21.5%) followed 

by assault (19.2%), sexual abuse (10.4%), firearms (9.9%), 

and administration of justice offenses (6.3%). Offense type 

frequencies for Native American/Alaskan Native Youthful 

offenders appear in Figure 7. 

Offense Types for Native American Youthful Offenders
United States Sentencing Commission

30

Figure 7. Offense Types for Native American/Alaskan Native Youthful Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

31

This section of the report examines offender 

characteristics that help determine sentences, such as 

criminal history and the assignment of Criminal History 

Categories. 

In the federal system, the federal sentencing guidelines 

provide a sentencing range in each case based on the 

severity of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal 

history. The advisory ranges are listed on a Sentencing 

Table, found in Chapter Five, Part A of the Commission’s 

Guidelines Manual, and are sorted based on numerical 

offense levels and Criminal History Categories which, in 

turn, are derived from a score assigned to each offender in 

light of past sentences. The Sentencing Table is subdivided 

into four zones (A, B, C, and D) that determine confinement 

options for each sentencing range. The four options, in 

increasing order of severity, are: probation only (i.e., zero 

months of confinement); probation that includes a condition 

or combination of conditions, such as home or intermittent 

confinement; imprisonment followed by a term of supervised 

release with a condition or combination of conditions that 

substitute community confinement or home detention (split 

sentence); and imprisonment only.59

Sentencing of Youthful Offenders
United States Sentencing Commission

32

Criminal History

An offender’s prior criminal history is one of two key 

factors that determines the advisory guideline range under 

the sentencing guidelines.60 Criminal history is expressed by 

a Criminal History Category (“CHC”) based on the number 

of criminal history points assigned to an offender’s prior 

sentences.61

The number of criminal history points assigned to an 

offender is determined, in general, by the length of the 

sentence or sentences imposed for prior convictions in state, 

local, or federal courts. Additional points are assigned if 

the defendant committed the instant offense while serving 

a sentence in another case (e.g., the defendant was on 

probation or parole at the time of the federal offense).62

There are some exceptions to these rules, such as prior 

convictions that fall outside of the prescribed time limits in 

the guidelines, and convictions for several types of minor 

offenses. 

Particularly relevant to this report is that prior sentences 

from juvenile jurisdictions are generally excluded unless they 

occurred within five years of the instant offense.63 

Because of inherently shorter criminal histories among 

youthful offenders, there was a larger number of CHC I 

youthful offenders than CHC I older offenders (57.1% vs. 

44.3%). Thirteen percent (13.2%) of youthful offenders were 

in CHC II, almost the same proportion as older offenders 

(13.7%). CHC III also had very similar percentages for 

youthful and older offenders—16.3 percent of youthful 

offenders were classified in this category and 16.6 percent 

of older offenders. In CHCs IV and above, some differences 

between the two groups of offenders was observed. 
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

33

For example, 7.4 percent of youthful offenders and 

9.7 percent of older offenders were classified as CHC IV; 

3.2 percent of youthful offenders and 5.8 percent of older 

offenders were classified as CHC V; and 2.8 percent of 

youthful offenders and 10.0 percent of older offenders were 

classified as CHC VI. Table 7 depicts the CHC comparison 

between youthful and older offenders. 

The number of criminal history points for youthful 

offenders ranged from zero to 60 (average=3; median=1). 

Results of Criminal History Category by offense type appear 

in Table 8. 

Youthful Offenders All Other Offenders

N % N %

Criminal History Category I 47,077 57.1% 170,903 44.3%

Criminal History Category II 10,928 13.2% 52,746 13.7%

Criminal History Category III 13,415 16.3% 63,808 16.6%

Criminal History Category IV 6,137 7.4% 37,402 9.7%

Criminal History Category V 2,634 3.2% 22,208 5.8%

Criminal History Category VI 2,334 2.8% 38,443 10.0%

Table 7. Criminal History Category of Youthful & All Other Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

34

Table 8 indicates that 67.4 percent of youthful offender 

drug traffickers were in CHC I. For immigration offenses, 

47.9 percent were in CHC I. For some of the violent crimes 

not listed in the table, such as murder, more than half of 

offenders were in CHC I. Among those offenders convicted of 

manslaughter (n=123), 81.3% were CHC I offenders. Among 

those offenders convicted of sexual abuse (n=616), 67.9 

percent were CHC I offenders. 

Overall, 30,666 of the youthful offenders in the study 

group had zero criminal history points, 17,324 had between 

one and three criminal history points, 12,737 had between 

four and six criminal history points, and 10,450 youthful 

offenders had more than six criminal history points. 

Table 8. Top 10 Offense Types by Criminal History Category for Youthful Offenders64

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Offense Type Crim Hist 

Category I

Crim Hist 

Category II

Crim Hist 

Category III

≥ Crim Hist 

Category IV Total

Drug Trafficking 17,950

67.4%

2,994

11.2%

3,243

12.2%

2,457

9.2%

26,644

Immigration 11,636

47.9%

4,549

18.7%

5,228

21.5%

2,871

11.8%

24,284

Firearms 3,347

28.8%

1,466

12.6%

2,828

24.4%

3,975

34.2%

11,616

Fraud 3,003

75.1%

382

9.5%

370

9.2%

243

6.1%

3,998

Other65 2,441

80.3%

268

8.8%

222

7.3%

110

3.6%

3,041

Simple Drug Possession 2,425

93.9%

72

2.8%

67

2.6%

20

0.8%

2,584

Child Pornography 1,066

85.8%

87

7.0%

71

5.7%

19

1.5%

1,243

Extortion/Racketeering 500

43.6%

173

15.1%

222

19.3%

253

22.0%

1,148

Larceny 865

75.6%

109

9.5%

100

8.7%

71

6.2%

1,145

Assault 646

59.8%

159

14.7%

148

13.7%

128

11.8%

1,081

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

35

When considering the criminal history of youthful 

offenders, courts may consider offenses committed prior 

to the age of 18. In order to determine the impact of these 

offenses on the criminal history scores of federal youthful 

offenders, and as discussed more fully in the methodology 

section, the Commission reviewed the criminal history of a 

20 percent random sample of youthful offenders sentenced in 

the federal courts in fiscal year 2015 in cases with complete 

sentencing documentation. This section presents the results 

of that review.

Of the youthful offenders in this sample, 57.3 percent had 

no contact with law enforcement66 before the age of 18 noted 

in the sentencing documents related to their later federal 

sentence. Of those youthful offenders who did have one or 

more contacts with law enforcement before age 18 (which 

was 42.7 percent of all youthful offenders), 18.5 percent had 

one or more juvenile adjudications, 36.1 percent had one or 

more criminal convictions, and 26.0 percent had both juvenile 

adjudications and criminal convictions. The remaining 

19.4 percent of the youthful offenders with law enforcement 

contacts had no criminal convictions or juvenile adjudications 

as a result of those contacts. 

Under the sentencing guidelines, an offender’s criminal 

history score may include points attributed to offenses 

committed prior to the age of 18, regardless of whether the 

offense was prosecuted as a criminal conviction (where the 

defendant was prosecuted as an adult under state law) or as 

a juvenile adjudication of delinquency. The Commission’s 

review of the sample of youthful offenders also examined 

what portion of the offenders received criminal history points 

at the time of their federal sentencing due to a prior offense 

committed before the age of 18. 

Approximately one-third (34.0%) of all youthful offenders 

Special Coding Project on the Impact of Offenses 

Committed Prior to Age 18 on Criminal History
United States Sentencing Commission

36

in the sample had contact with law enforcement officers for 

an offense committed before the age of 18 that resulted in a 

juvenile adjudication, criminal conviction, or both. In 76.0 

percent of these offenses, the youthful offender received 

one or more criminal history points in the calculation of the 

offender’s criminal history score. That is, 25.9 percent of all 

youthful offenders in the sample committed an offense before 

the age of 18 that was assigned points under the sentencing 

guidelines. Those offenses contributed, on average, 3.0 

points to the offender’s criminal history score. 

Of the 7.8 percent of the youthful offenders in the sample 

with only juvenile adjudications resulting from contact 

with law enforcement, 53.5 percent received one or more 

criminal history points as a result of those adjudications 

being considered in connection with the offenders’ instant 

federal offense. That is, 4.2 percent of all youthful offenders 

in the sample received criminal history points resulting only 

from juvenile adjudications. These juvenile adjudications 

contributed, on average, 2.1 points to the offender’s criminal 

history score.

Of the 15.2 percent of the youthful offenders in the 

sample with only criminal convictions for offenses committed 

before the age of 18, 75.9 percent received one or more 

criminal history points as a result of those convictions being 

considered in connection with the offenders’ instant federal 

offense. That is, 11.6 percent of all youthful offenders in the 

sample received criminal history points resulting only from 

criminal convictions for offenses committed before the age of 

18. Those criminal convictions contributed, on average, 2.3 

points to the offender’s criminal history score.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

37

Sentencing Analysis

This section examines types and length of sentences 

for youthful offenders and compares them to sentences of 

older offenders.67 In the federal system, the vast majority of 

offenders plead guilty. Consistent with this practice, 98.5 

percent of all convicted youthful defendants pled guilty.68

As indicated in Table 9, the average and median 

sentences of youthful offenders are typically lower than 

sentences for older offenders. For example, the overall 

average sentence for youthful offenders from FY 2010 to FY 

2015 was 34.9 months (median=15.0 months). This compares 

to an overall average for all older offenders during the same 

period of 45.3 months (median=24.0 months). 

Table 9. Average Sentence for Youthful & All Other Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Youthful Offenders All Other Offenders

Overall Sentences

Average

Median

34.9 months

15.0 months

45.3 months 

24.0 months

Mandatory Minimum Penalty

Average

Median

86.5 months

60.0 months

107.9 months

84.0 months

No Mandatory Minimum Penalty

Average

Median

21.2 months

12.0 months

27.0 months 

15.0 months

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

38

In cases where the offender was convicted of an offense 

carrying a mandatory minimum sentence, the average 

sentence was 86.5 months (median=60.0 months). For all 

other offenders who were convicted of such an offense, the 

average sentence was 107.9 months. In cases where the 

offense did not carry a mandatory minimum sentence, the 

average sentence is 21.2 months (median=12.0 months) for 

youthful offenders and 27.0 months for all other offenders 

(median=15.0 months). 

The Commission typically categorizes the position of 

the sentence imposed relative to the guideline range into 

one of four groups. First, the sentence can fall within the 

guideline range. Second, the sentence can be above the 

guideline range, which may occur for a variety of reasons 

such as aggravating circumstances related to the offense, or 

the court’s determination that the offender’s criminal history 

score underrepresents the seriousness of the offender’s 

criminal history or that the offender is likely to commit a 

new crime when released. Third, the sentence can be below 

the guideline range at the request of the government, often 

because the defendant provided substantial assistance to the 

government in the investigation or prosecution of another 

case, or had agreed to have his or her case handled as part 

of an early disposition program. Last, the sentence can be 

below the guideline range for other reasons initiated by the 

court. Courts may take into account mitigating factors in the 

offender’s personal history or instant offense, among other 

considerations, in deciding to reduce a sentence. 

Overall, youthful offenders were sentenced within the 

guideline range in 56.1 percent of cases, above the guideline 

range in less than two percent of cases, below the guideline 

range with government sponsorship in 25.0 percent of cases, 

and otherwise below the guideline range in 17.0 percent 

of cases. Table 10 depicts the sentences relative to the 

guideline range by year.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

39

Examining the government sponsored below range 

sentences, 37.9 percent were for substantial assistance 

(USSG §5K1.1), 43.5 percent were for Early Disposition 

Program participation (USSG §5K3.1), and the remainder 

(18.6%) were for some other government sponsored reason.

 As previously discussed, the within guideline range rate 

for youthful offenders was 56.1 percent during the six years 

studied. By comparison, the within guideline range rate for 

older offenders was 50.1 percent, six percentage points lower. 

Youthful offenders are more likely to be sentenced within 

the range primarily because they are less likely to receive a 

non-government sponsored downward departure or variance 

and are less likely receive a substantial assistance departure. 

Analysis of variances and departures for youthful and older 

offenders appears in Table 11. 

Table 10. Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Youthful Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Fiscal Year Within Range Above Range Gov’t Sponsored

Below Range

Non-Gov’t 

Sponsored

Below Range

2010 59.4% 1.6% 22.9% 16.2%

2011 60.2% 1.3% 23.4% 15.1%

2012 56.2% 1.7% 25.6% 16.5%

2013 55.9% 2.4% 24.7% 17.0%

2014 50.9% 2.4% 27.4% 19.3%

2015 51.6% 2.2% 27.4% 18.8%

All Years 56.1% 1.9% 25.0% 17.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

40

One of the reasons for variances cited by sentencing 

judges in some cases is the offender’s age or lack of guidance 

as a youth. In those cases where the sentence imposed 

was a downward departure or variance, the court cited the 

offender’s age or lack of guidance as youth as a reason for 

the sentence in 17.8 percent of the cases. This compares to 

6.7 percent of the cases involving older offenders when the 

sentence imposed was a downward departure or variance. 

Another way to analyze sentences relative to the guideline 

range is to compare sentence length to the applicable 

guideline minimum (see Table 12). The average sentence for 

youthful offenders sentenced within the guideline range was 

33.4 months (median=12.0 months). The average guideline 

minimum for this group was 30.8 months (median=10.0 

months). For those sentenced above the range, the average 

Table 11. Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Youthful & All Other Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015 

Total Number of Cases (% Cases) Youthful Offenders All Other Offenders

Within Range 46,550 (56.1%) 193,742 (50.1%)

Above Range

 Departure 

 Otherwise Above 

456 (0.5%)

1,106 (1.3%)

2,520 (0.7%)

5,418 (1.4%)

Gov’t Sponsored Below Range

 USSG §5K1.1 Sub. Assist.

 USSG §5K3.1 Early Disp.

 Other 

7,867 (9.5%)

9,035 (10.9%)

3,864 (4.7%)

48,230 (12.5%)

39,006 (10.1%)

22,469 (5.8%)

Non-Gov’t Sponsored Below Range

 Departure 

 Otherwise Below 

2,466 (3.0%)

11,610 (14.0%)

13,075 (3.4%)

62,004 (16.0%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

41

Table 12. Sentences Imposed & Position Relative to the Guideline Range for Youthful Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Within Range

(N=46,550)

Above Range

(N=1,562)

Gov’t 

Sponsored 

Below Range

(N=20,766)

Non-Gov’t 

Sponsored 

Below Range

(N=14,076)

Guideline Minimum

Average

Median

30.8 months

10.0 months

49.5 months

24.0 months

61.3 months

37.0 months

63.6 months

41.0 months

Sentence Imposed69

Average

Median

33.4 months

12.0 months

86.0 months

60.0 months

34.4 months

21.0 months

42.2 months

24.0 months

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.

sentence was 86.0 months (median=60.0 months). For 

those offenders sentenced to a government sponsored below 

range sentence, the average sentence imposed was 34.4 

months, a decrease of 26.9 months or 43.9 percent below the 

average guideline minimum. For those sentenced to a nongovernment sponsored below range sentence, the average 

sentence was 42.2 months, a decrease of 21.4 months or 33.6 

percent below the average guideline minimum. 

The nature of the sentence that offenders received was 

also examined in order to determine whether youthful 

offenders were given alternative sentences, such as home 

confinement, community confinement or intermittent 

confinement, more or less often than other offenders. 

Overall, only about five percent (5.3%) of youthful offenders 

were given an alternative sentence, which is about the same 

rate as that for older offenders. The percentage of youthful 

offenders sentenced to probation also does not suggest much 

variation between the youthful and older offender groups. 

Youthful and older offenders received a sentence of probation 

only in seven percent of cases. 
United States Sentencing Commission

42
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

43

Other Sentencing Analyses

This section provides analysis of the application of specific 

guideline provisions, such as adjustments for aggravating 

and mitigating circumstances, and the designation of some 

offenders as career offenders. 

Chapter Three Adjustments 

The federal sentencing guidelines contain sentencing 

adjustments for several factors, including any aggravating 

or mitigating role that defendants played in offenses.70 For 

example, the offense level can be increased by four levels 

if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal 

organization that had at least five participants. Among 

youthful offenders in this report, 2.1 percent received a 

sentencing adjustment for playing an aggravated role in 

an offense. Among older offenders, 5.1 percent received 

an adjustment for aggravated role. The distribution of 

the adjustment is depicted in Table 13 and indicates that 

806 youthful offenders received an increase of two levels 

for aggravating role, representing just one percent of the 

population and about half the proportion of older offenders 

receiving the same adjustment. Approximately one percent 

of youthful offenders received an adjustment of three or four 

levels for aggravating role. 
United States Sentencing Commission

44

Table 13. Aggravating Role Offense Adjustments71 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

No 

Adjustment +2 +3 +4

Youthful Offenders

Number

Percent

69,665

97.9%

806

1.1%

410

0.6%

285

0.4%

All Other Offenders

Number

Percent

336,456

94.9%

7,401

2.1%

4,304

1.2%

6,229

1.8%

A defendant’s offense level may also be reduced due to a 

mitigating role, specifically if the defendant was a minor or 

minimal participant in the criminal activity. Among youthful 

offenders, 12.9 percent received a reduction in offense level 

due to a mitigating role. The distribution of the reductions 

appears below in Table 14. More than nine percent of 

youthful offenders received a reduction of two offense 

levels compared to 4.7 percent of older offenders. Thus 

proportionally, youthful offenders are more likely to receive a 

two level reduction in offense level due to mitigating factors 

such as playing a minor role in the offense. This trend also 

held for reductions of three and four offense levels. 

Table 14. Mitigating Role Offense Adjustments72 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

No 

Adjustment -2 -3 -4

Youthful Offenders

Number

Percent

61,961

87.1%

6,578

9.2%

574

0.8%

2,051

2.9%

All Other Offenders

Number

Percent

332,059

93.7%

16,578

4.7%

1,556

0.4%

4,191

1.2%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

45

Career Offenders and Armed Career Offenders

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an offender is 

designated a career offender if the defendant was at least 18 

years old at the time of the instant offense of conviction, if 

the offense is a felony that involves a controlled substance(s) 

or is a crime of violence, and if the defendant has at least two 

prior adult convictions, for either violent crimes or crimes 

involving controlled substances.73

There were 689 youthful offenders in the study group 

designated as career offenders (see Table 15). Of these, 

17.0 percent committed crimes of violence leading to their 

designation as career offenders, 30.5 percent committed drug 

offenses for which they were deemed to be career offenders, 

and 52.5 percent committed both violent and drug offenses. 

In just over five percent of cases, the specific offenses that led 

to the career offender status could not be determined. 

Of the 689 career offenders, 25.1 percent were sentenced 

within the guideline range, and the average sentence for 

this group was 212.6 months (median=188.0 months). The 

average guideline minimum for this group was 206.7 months. 

Given that there were several offenders who received life 

sentences in this group, the median sentence of 188 months 

is a better measure of the sentences imposed in these cases. 

There were also nine youthful career offenders in this 

group who were sentenced above the range. The average 

sentence for this group was 231.2 months (median=204.0 

months), while the guideline minimum for this group was 

177.9 months. There were a total of 507 youthful career 

offenders that received a sentence below the guideline range 

—127 received a reduction in sentence due to substantial 

assistance, 120 received another type of government 

sponsored below range sentence, and 260 received a 
United States Sentencing Commission

46

non-government sponsored below range sentence.74 Table 

15 also depicts average and median sentences in months for 

these groups. Note that the length of sentences imposed are 

substantially lower than the guideline minimums, thus the 

number of months the sentence departs from the guideline 

minimums are high in both government and non-government 

sponsored below range sentences (97.9 and 68.5 months on 

average, respectively).

Offenders who are sentenced under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (ACCA)75 are subject to a mandatory minimum 

sentence of 15 years if they are convicted under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) with at least three prior felony convictions for 

serious drug offenses or violent crimes. In this group, there 

were 215 youthful offenders sentenced under ACCA. Of 

these, 64.2 percent were sentenced within the guideline 

range, and received an average sentence of 201.4 months 

(median=180.0 months). None were sentenced above the 

Table 15. Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Youthful Career Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Within Range 

(N=173)

Above Range 

(N=9)

Gov’t Sponsored 

Below Range 

(N=247)

Non-Gov’t Sponsored 

Below Range 

(N=260)

Guideline Minimum

Average

Median

206.7 months

188.0 months

177.9 months

151.0 months

220.6 months

235.0 months

196.5 months

188.0 months

Sentence Imposed

Average

Median

212.6 months

188.0 months

231.2 months

204.0 months

122.7 months

120.0 months

128.0 months

120.0 months

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

47

range. There were 29 youthful offenders who received a 

reduction in sentence for substantial assistance, 17 received 

another type of government sponsored below range sentence, 

and 31 received a non-government sponsored below range 

sentence. The sentence detail for these offenders appears in 

Table 16. 

The average sentence for youthful ACCA offenders who 

received a government sponsored below range sentence was 

129.1 months (median=120.0 months). These offenders had 

an average reduction in sentence of 71.9 months or a 35.8 

percent reduction in sentence from the guideline minimum. 

Table 16. Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Youthful 

Armed Career Criminal Act Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Within Range 

(N=138)

Gov’t Sponsored 

Below Range 

(N=46)

Non-Gov’t Sponsored 

Below Range 

(N=31)

Guideline Minimum

Average

Median

195.8 months

180.0 months

201.0 months

188.0 months

209.9 months

188.0 months

Sentence Imposed

Average

Median

201.4 months

180.0 months

129.1 months

120.0 months

185.3 months

180.0 months

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.
United States Sentencing Commission

48

Life Sentences

Among the study group of youthful offenders, 96 received 

life imprisonment sentences when sentenced for their federal 

conviction. Five of these offenders were younger than 20 

at the time of sentencing. These 96 offenders represent 

just one-tenth of one percent of all youthful offenders. The 

youngest of these offenders (one offender) was 18 at the time 

of sentencing. Eighty-five of these offenders were 21 or older 

at the time of sentencing. 

Of these offenders, 29 received life sentences for firearms 

offenses, 25 for extortion and/or racketeering, 17 for drug 

trafficking, ten for murder, three for auto-theft, and two 

for kidnapping. The remaining defendants received life 

sentences for a variety of offenses ranging from national 

defense76 to fraud offenses. More than 70 percent of these 

youthful offenders were sentenced under USSG §2A1.1, the 

sentencing guideline for first degree murder.77
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

49

Recidivism

Youthful offenders have the highest recidivism rate 

of all federal offenders. As discussed more fully in the 

Commission’s overview report on recidivism among offenders 

sentenced in the federal system,78 when measuring recidivism 

by rearrest after release into the community, offenders who 

are sentenced prior to age 21 have higher levels of recidivism 

(71.1%) than any other age group. Those sentenced at age 21 

to 25 have the second highest recidivism rate (65.6%). Taken 

together, youthful offenders have an average recidivism rate 

of 67 percent, compared to an average recidivism rate of 41.6 

percent for older offenders. 

The most common offenses for which youthful offenders 

were re-arrested were: assault (26.7%), drug trafficking 

(13.2%), and public order offenses (12.7%). When youthful 

offenders were reconvicted, the most common offenses of 

reconviction were public order offenses (16.3%), assault 

(15.0%), and drug trafficking (14.1%). Among youthful 

offenders who were reincarcerated, the most common 

offenses leading to the reincarceration were: public order 

offenses (19.5%), drug trafficking (15.1%), and assault 

(12.7%).
United States Sentencing Commission

50

It should be noted that the offenders represented in 

Figure 8 are not the same group that are used in the 

analyses throughout the remainder of this report. The 

offenders discussed in Figure 8 were released into the 

community in calendar year 2005 and were examined as 

part of the Commission’s on-going study of the recidivism of 

federal offenders.79

Figure 8. Rearrest Rates for Ex-Offenders by Age at Sentencing & Release

Recidivism Study Release Cohort

U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

51

Conclusion 

This report examined offenders who were sentenced in 

the federal system while age 25 or younger during fiscal 

years 2010 through 2015. There were 86,309 youthful 

offenders sentenced during this time frame, representing 18 

percent of all federal offenders sentenced during that time. 

More than three quarters (86.0%) of youthful offenders are 

male, more than half (54.5%) are U.S. citizens, and more 

than half (57.8%) are Hispanic. Less than three percent of 

youthful offenders sentenced during this time frame were 

Native American or Alaskan Natives. Only 52 of all youthful 

offenders sentenced between 2010 and 2015 were juveniles at 

the time of sentencing. 

Youthful offenders had a very similar pattern of offense 

types as older offenders. The most common offense type 

among youthful offenders was drug trafficking, followed by 

immigration, firearms, fraud offenses, and simple possession 

offenses. The most common drug among drug offenses for 

youthful offenders was marijuana. 

About 57 percent of the youthful offenders in this study 

were classified as CHC I offenders. In fact, 43.1 percent 

of all youthful offenders in this study received no criminal 

history points or had no countable criminal history. About 

13 percent were classified as CHC II offenders, 16 percent as 

CHC III offenders, and the remainder were classified as CHC 

IV or above.

 
United States Sentencing Commission

52

For all youthful offenders in this study, the average 

sentence was 34.9 months. In only a few cases (5.3%) was 

an alternative sentence imposed on youthful offenders in the 

study group. The median sentence for youthful offenders 

where a mandatory minimum sentence applied was 60 

months. More than half (56.1%) of youthful offenders 

during this time frame were sentenced within the guideline 

range, and one quarter were sentenced below the range with 

government sponsorship.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

53

1 Percentages reported throughout this paper may not add to 

100% due to rounding. Analyses on guideline application exclude cases 

with incomplete guideline application information. Sentences and 

guideline minimums in excess of 470 months are set at 470 months 

for the purposes of the analyses discussed in this report. For further 

information on the analysis of sentence lengths, see U.S. Sentencing

Comm’n, 2015 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing

Statistics S-170 (2016) [hereinafter Sourcebook]. 

2 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Report of the Tribal Issues Advisory

Group (2016) [hereinafter TIAG Report].

3 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, “Final Priorities for Amendment 

Cycle,” 81 FR 58004 (Aug. 24, 2016). 

4 18 U.S.C. §§ 5005. et seq. (repealed by Pub. L. 98–473, 98 Stat. 

2027, Title II, § 218(a)(8) (Oct. 12, 1984)).

5 Id.

6 Title II, Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 

98–473, 98 Stat. 1976 (1984).

7 Catherine A. Foddai, Appellate Review of Federal Youth 

Corrections Act Sentences in the Aftermath of Dorszynski v. United States, 

45 Fordham L. Rev. 110 (1976); Cynthia A. Kelly, Sentencing Under the 

Federal Youth Corrections Act: When May a Youth Be Treated as an 

Adult? 13 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 849 (1982).

8 See Thomas R. Kane, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Research

Review: Impact of the Youth Corrections Act (1985), https://www.ncjrs.

gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=104851.

9 See supra note 6. 

10 See 28 U.S.C. § 994(d).

Endnotes
United States Sentencing Commission

54

11 See 28 U.S.C. § 995(a)(19).

12 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual §1B1.12 

(Persons Sentenced Under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (Policy 

Statement)) (2016) [hereinafter USSG]. 

13 See id. The Commission initially exempted juvenile delinquents 

from the guidelines in 1991 by amending USSG §5H1.1 (Age (Policy 

Statement)) to add a policy statement that the guidelines do not apply 

to persons sentenced as juvenile delinquents. In 1993, the Commission 

deleted the policy statement from §5H1.1 and added a new policy 

statement at §1B1.12 exempting juvenile delinquents from the guidelines 

and establishing the maximum sentence that may be imposed on a 

juvenile delinquent in response to United States v. R.L.C., 112 S. Ct. 

1329 (1992) (requiring calculation of the guideline range to determine the 

maximum sentence imposable on a juvenile delinquent). See USSG App. 

C, amend. 475 (effective Nov. 1, 1993).

14 See USSG §4A1.2 (Definitions and Instructions for Computing 

Criminal History). 

15 See USSG §4A1.2(d), (e).

16 See USSG §4A1.2(d).

17 See USSG §4A1.2(c)(2) (listing prior offenses that are never 

counted in a criminal history calculation); see also USSG §4A1.2(f) 

(providing that “diversionary dispositions resulting from a finding of 

guilt or a plea of nolo contendere are counted” even if a conviction is 

not formally entered, except that diversion from juvenile court is not 

counted.).

18 See USSG §5H1.1 (Age (Policy Statement)). After the decision 

in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), sentencing courts may also consider age in determining 

whether and to what extent a variance is warranted. See United States 

v. Chase, 560 F.3d 828, 830–31 (8th Cir. 2009) (After Booker “factors 

such as a defendant’s age, medical condition, prior military service, 

family obligations, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., can form the bases 

for a variance even though they would not justify a departure”); see 

also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 463–64 (8th Cir. 2009) 

(120-month sentence based in part on defendant’s age (26 years) at 

time of the instant offense was substantively reasonable where district 
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

55

court determined that a downward variance from 360-month to life 

guidelines range was warranted); but see United States v. Omole, 523 

F.3d 691, 698–700 (7th Cir. 2008) (defendant’s 12-month sentence was 

substantively unreasonable where defendant’s young age (20 years) and 

“lack of understanding that people of his age seem to reflect” were not a 

“compelling justification” for the substantially lenient sentence). 

19 See USSG §5H1.1 (effective Nov. 1, 1987) (“Age is not ordinarily 

relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the 

guidelines. Neither is it ordinarily relevant in determining the type of 

sentence to be imposed when the guidelines provide sentencing options. . . 

.”).

20 See USSG App. C, amend. 739 (effective Nov. 1, 2010).

21 Age of the offender at the time of sentencing is used as a proxy 

for age at the time of offense in this study given that the Commission 

does not collect data on age at the time of the offense. 

22 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

23 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

24 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

25 560 U.S. 48 (2010). 

26 See also L. Steinberg, The influence of neuroscience on US 

Supreme Court decisions about adolescents’ criminal culpability, 14 

Nature 513–18 (2013). 

27 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).

28 Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14–280 (Jan. 25, 2016). 

29 Cassandra B. Romine & Cecil R. Reynolds, A Model of the 

Development of Frontal Lobe Functioning: Findings From a MetaAnalysis, 12(4) Applied Neuropsychology 190–201 (2005).

30 Id. 

31 Id. 
United States Sentencing Commission

56

32 Silvia A. Bunge et al., Immature Frontal Lobe Contributions to 

Cognitive Control in Children: Evidence from fMRI, 33(2) Neuron 301–11 

(2002).

33 Jane E. Anderson, Brain Development in Adolescents: New 

Research—Implications for Physicians and Parents in Regard to Medical 

Decision Making, 30(2) Issues in Law and Medicine 193–96 (2015); 

Joanna Jacobus et al., Cortical Thickness in Adolescent Marijuana and 

Alcohol Users: A Three-year Prospective Study from Adolescence to Young 

Adulthood, 16 Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 101–09 (2015).

34 Sara B. Johnson, Robert W. Blum, & Jay N. Giedd, Adolescent 

Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience 

Research in Adolescent Health Policy, 45(3) Journal of Adolescent

Health, 216–21 (2009). 

35 Id.; Mary Beckman, Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent 

Brain, 305 Science 596–99 (2004); Ronald E. Dahl, Adolescent Brain 

development: A Period of Vulnerabilities and Opportunities, 1021 

Annals of the N.Y. Acad. of Sci. 1–22 (2004); K. Rubia et al., Functional 

Frontalisation with Age: Mapping Neurodevelopmental Trajectories with 

fMRI, 24 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 13-19 (2000); National 

Institute of Mental Health, The Teen Brain: Still Under Construction

(2011), http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-stillunder-construction/index.shtml.

36 B.J. Casey et al., A Developmental Functional MRI Study 

of Prefrontal Activation During Performance of a GO-NO-GO Task, 9

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 835–47 (1997); Robert Sapolsky, 

Dude, Where’s My Frontal Cortex? 15 Nautilus (2014), http://nautil.us/

issue/15/turbulence/dude-wheres-my-frontal-cortex. For example, many 

researchers cite rental car company policies as hitting the mark with 

the age that most people are expected to be mature enough to make 

responsible decisions—a person must be 25 to rent a vehicle. See, e.g.,

A. Rae Simpson, MIT Young Adult Development Project (2008), http://

hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html; Alan Greenblatt, What 

is the Age of Responsibility?, Governing (Sep. 30, 2009), http://www.

governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/What-is-the-Age.html. 

37 28 U.S.C. § 995(a)(12), (14)–(16).

38 28 U.S.C. § 994(w).
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

57

39 Sourcebook, supra note 1, at A-5, A-6. See also Christine

Kitchens, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Introduction to the Collection of

Individual Offender Data by the United States Sentencing Commission

(2009).

40 For purposes of this report, a violent offense was any one of the 

following offenses: murder, non-negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, 

rape, fondling, sexual assault, robbery, sodomy, assault, intimidation, 

blackmail/extortion, child abuse, arson, and rioting. 

41 Prior law enforcement contact could be arrests, or other types of 

school or community-based interactions with law enforcement officials. 

42 Data on petty offenses are not reported to the Commission 

because the sentencing guidelines do not apply in those cases. See USSG

§1B1.9 (Class B or C Misdemeanors and Infractions). 

43 There were 1,615 offenders with missing age data during this 

time period that were excluded from analysis. 

44 Much of this change can be attributed to decreases in offenders 

sentenced for immigration violations and drug trafficking. 

45 This group of 52 are considered juveniles under federal law. 

46 Native Americans/Alaskan Natives who are non-U.S. citizens 

were excluded from this analysis. 

47 See TIAG Report (discussing how Native American youth are 

processed in the federal system), supra note 2. 

48 A complete list of districts appears in Appendix, Table A-1. 

49 For additional analysis of cases involving simple drug 

possession, see Melissa Reimer, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Weighing the

Charges: Simple Possession of Drugs in the Federal Criminal Justice

System (2016). 

50 Violent offenses include those sentenced under the following 

guidelines: All Chapter Two, Part A guidelines, except §§2A3.5 and 

2A3.6; §§2B3.1, 2B3.2, 2B3.3, 2E1.3, 2E1.4, 2E2.1, and all Chapter Two, 

Part K guidelines except §2K2.1.
United States Sentencing Commission

58

51 See USSG Chapter Two, Part D for a description of these 

offenses. These cases include trafficking, possession, and communication 

facility offenses. 

52 The immigration guidelines are: USSG §§2L1.1 (Smuggling, 

Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien); 2L1.2 (Unlawfully 

Entering or Remaining in the United States); 2L2.1 (Trafficking in 

a Document Relating to Naturalization); and 2L2.2 (Fraudulently 

Acquiring Documents Relating to Naturalization). This portion of the 

analysis is by guideline. 

53 See USSG Chapter Two, Part K for a description of these 

offenses. This group of offenders does not include offenders who were 

convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

54 See 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (General Crimes Act).

55 See 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (Major Crimes Act).

56 See 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (listing states that shall have jurisdiction 

over offenses committed by or against Indians that occur within the 

enumerated area of Indian Country within the listed state).

57 See id.

58 See supra note 46. 

59 For more information on sentencing zones, see Courtney

Semisch, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Alternative Sentences in the Federal

Criminal Justice System (2015). 

60 See USSG Chapter Five, Part A (Sentencing Table).

61 See generally USSG, Chapter Four.

 

62 See USSG §4A1.1. Points are assigned as follows: three points 

are assigned for each previous conviction that resulted in a sentence 

of more than 13 months; two points are assigned for each previous 

conviction resulting in a sentence of more than 60 days; and one point 

is assigned to previous convictions not counted in the previous two 

categories. The total number of criminal history points an offender 

received determines the Criminal History Category (CHC). Thus, an 

offender with zero or one point is assigned to CHC I; an offender with 
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

59

two or three points is assigned to CHC II; an offender with four, five, or 

six points is assigned to CHC III; an offender with seven, eight, or nine 

points is assigned to CHC IV; an offender with 10, 11, or 12 points is 

assigned to CHC V; and offenders with 13 or more points are assigned to 

CHC VI. 

63 See USSG §§4A1.1(b) and (c); 4A1.2(d). Adult convictions for 

offenses committed prior to age 18 are treated similarly. If a juvenile 

record has been expunged, even if the qualifying offense would have 

received criminal history points, the offense does not receive criminal 

history points. Similarly, a juvenile record could be sealed, and thus 

not be available for a probation officer to include in criminal history 

calculations. 

64 Row percentages are indicated in this table. 

65 See Sourcebook, supra note 1, at Appendix A for a description of 

“Other” offenses.

66 See supra note 41.

67 See supra note 1.

68 See Sourcebook, supra note 1, at Table 10. 

 

69 The total sentence, in months, plus alternatives.

70 See USSG §§3B1.1, 3B1.2.

71 There were 10 older offenders excluded from this table due to 

errors in adjustment calculations. 

72 There were two youthful offenders and 16 older offenders 

excluded from this table due to errors in mitigating role calculations. 

73 USSG §4B1.1. For the purpose of that guideline, the term 

“controlled substance offense” has been defined as a drug trafficking 

offense. USSG §4B1.2(b). For more information on career offenders in 

the federal system see U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Report to the Congress: 

Career Offender Sentencing Enhancements (2016).

74 After the Supreme Court decision in Booker, supra note 18, the 

sentencing guidelines became advisory; however, courts are still required 
United States Sentencing Commission

60

to calculate a defendant’s guideline range, consider whether there is 

basis to depart from that range, and then consider the factors in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) when contemplating the sentence to impose. For more 

information on federal sentencing and guideline application see U.S. 

Sentencing Comm’n, Federal Sentencing: The Basics (2015). 

75 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); USSG §4B1.4. For the purpose of that 

guideline, the term “serious drug offense” has been defined as a drug 

trafficking offense. USSG §4B1.2(b). 

76 This case was terrorism related. 

77 The offense of conviction for offenders sentenced under this 

guideline may not necessarily be first degree murder, however, some 

guidelines contain a cross reference to section 2A1.1 when a victim was 

killed under circumstances that would constitute murder. See, e.g., 

USSG §§2D1.1, 2A4.1. 

78 Kim Steven Hunt and Robert Dumville, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 

Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview (2016). 

This study uses a different population than the current study. 

79 The recidivism study examined 25,431 federal offenders who 

were released into the community in 2005 after discharging a sentence of 

incarceration or by commencing a term of probation.
Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

61

Appendix

Table A-1. Youthful Offenders in Each Circuit and District

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015

Table A-2. Offense Types for Youthful Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015
United States Sentencing Commission

62
District N % District N %

TOTAL

FIFTH CIRCUIT 21,360

D.C. CIRCUIT 189 Louisiana

District of Columbia 189 0.2 Eastern 287 0.3

 Middle 147 0.2

FIRST CIRCUIT 2,721 Western 282 0.3

Maine 211 0.2 Mississippi

Massachusetts 351 0.4 Northern 120 0.1

New Hampshire 178 0.2 Southern 234 0.3

Puerto Rico 1,836 2.1 Texas

Rhode Island 145 0.2 Eastern 740 0.9

 Northern 950 1.1

SECOND CIRCUIT 3,411 Southern 8,004 9.3

Connecticut 279 0.3 Western 10,596 12.3

New York

 Eastern 694 0.8 SIXTH CIRCUIT 4,739

 Northern 475 0.6 Kentucky

 Southern 1,168 1.4 Eastern 411 0.5

 Western 596 0.7 Western 457 0.5

Vermont 199 0.2 Michigan

 Eastern 694 0.8

THIRD CIRCUIT 2,165 Western 431 0.5

Delaware 90 0.1 Ohio

New Jersey 497 0.6 Northern 661 0.8

Pennsylvania Southern 540 0.6

 Eastern 659 0.8 Tennessee

 Middle 391 0.5 Eastern 721 0.8

 Western 446 0.5 Middle 327 0.4

Virgin Islands 82 0.1 Western 497 0.6

FOURTH CIRCUIT 7,157 SEVENTH CIRCUIT 2,338

Maryland 740 0.9 Illinois

North Carolina Central 371 0.4

 Eastern 939 1.1 Northern 369 0.4

 Middle 586 0.7 Southern 334 0.4

 Western 530 0.6 Indiana

South Carolina 868 1.0 Northern 410 0.5

Virginia Southern 228 0.3

 Eastern 2,518 2.9 Wisconsin

 Western 334 0.4 Eastern 476 0.6

West Virginia Western 150 0.2

 Northern 407 0.5

 Southern 235 0.3

Appendix Table A-1

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS IN EACH CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT1

Fiscal Years 2010-2015

63

Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015
CIRCUIT CIRCUIT

District N % District N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 4,598 TENTH CIRCUIT 8,918

Arkansas Colorado 470 0.5

 Eastern 281 0.3 Kansas 706 0.8

 Western 257 0.3 New Mexico 5,792 6.7

Iowa Oklahoma

 Northern 446 0.5 Eastern 89 0.1

 Southern 296 0.3 Northern 205 0.2

Minnesota 318 0.4 Western 472 0.6

Missouri Utah 807 0.9

 Eastern 604 0.7 Wyoming 377 0.4

 Western 612 0.7

Nebraska 657 0.8 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 6,050

North Dakota 409 0.5 Alabama

South Dakota 718 0.8 Middle 159 0.2

 Northern 378 0.4

NINTH CIRCUIT 22,663 Southern 280 0.3

Alaska 176 0.2 Florida

Arizona 11,802 13.7 Middle 1,319 1.5

California Northern 328 0.4

 Central 978 1.1 Southern 1,768 2.1

 Eastern 634 0.7 Georgia

 Northern 585 0.7 Middle 513 0.6

 Southern 5,582 6.5 Northern 503 0.6

Guam 65 0.1 Southern 802 0.9

Hawaii 133 0.2

Idaho 274 0.3

Montana 372 0.4

Nevada 466 0.5

Northern Mariana Islands 4 0.0

Oregon 484 0.6

Washington

 Eastern 368 0.4

 Western 740 0.9

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.

Appendix Table A-1 (cont.)

United States Sentencing Commission

64
PRIMARY OFFENSE N %

TOTAL 86,309

Murder 95 0.1

Manslaughter 123 0.1

Kidnapping/Hostage Taking 72 0.1

Sexual Abuse 616 0.7

Assault 1,136 1.3

Robbery 1,042 1.2

Arson 95 0.1

Drugs - Trafficking 26,663 30.9

Drugs - Communication Facility 347 0.4

Drugs - Simple Possession 4,444 5.2

Firearms 11,840 13.7

Burglary/B&E 129 0.2

Auto Theft 112 0.1

Larceny 1,249 1.5

Fraud 4,651 5.4

Embezzlement 113 0.1

Forgery/Counterfeiting 984 1.1

Bribery 40 0.1

Tax 61 0.1

Money Laundering 348 0.4

Racketeering/Extortion 1,149 1.3

Gambling/Lottery 6 0.0

Civil Rights 61 0.1

Immigration 24,709 28.6

Child Pornography 1,246 1.4

Prison Offenses 391 0.5

Administration of Justice Offenses 935 1.1

Environmental/Wildlife 69 0.1

National Defense 123 0.1

Antitrust 2 0.0

Food & Drug 36 0.0

Other Miscellaneous Offenses 3,422 4.0

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 - 2015 Datafiles, USSCFY10 - USSCFY15.

Appendix Table A-2

Offense Types for Youthful Offenders

FY 2010 to FY 2015

65

Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015