UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

Weighing the Charges:

Simple Possession of Drugs in the Federal Criminal Justice System
Patti B. Saris

Chair

Charles R. Breyer 

Vice Chair

Dabney L. Friedrich 

Commissioner

Rachel E. Barkow 

Commissioner

William H. Pryor, Jr. 

Commissioner

Michelle Morales 

Ex Officio

J. Patricia Wilson Smoot

Ex Officio

Kenneth P. Cohen

Staff Director

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

September 2016

United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov
1

Introduction1

The simple possession of illegal drugs is a criminal 

offense under federal law2 and in many state 

jurisdictions. The offense occurs “when someone 

has on his or her person, or available for his or her 

use, a small amount of an illegal substance for the 

purpose of consuming or using it but without the 

intent to sell or give it to anyone else.”3

Simple drug possession is a misdemeanor under federal law which provides that an 

offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, fined a 

minimum of $1,000, or both. However, if an offender is convicted of simple possession 

after a prior drug related offense has become final, the offender can be charged with a 

felony simple possession offense.

4

The number of federal offenders whose most serious offense was simple drug 

possession increased nearly 400 percent during the six-year period between fiscal years 

2008 and 2013. A change of this magnitude over a relatively short period of time 

triggered further investigation into these cases using data on offender and offense 

characteristics routinely collected by the United States Sentencing Commission (“the 

Commission”), as well as additional data collected specifically for this project. 

At first, this dramatic increase in the number of offenders sentenced for the simple 

possession of drugs seems to suggest a substantially increased focus on this offense by 

federal law enforcement personnel. Further analysis, however, does not support such a 

conclusion. A closer inspection of the data demonstrates that this increase is almost 

entirely attributable to a single drug type—marijuana—and to offenders who were 

arrested at or near the U.S./Mexico border (a group almost entirely composed of 

offenders from the District of Arizona). For simple possession of marijuana offenders 

arrested at locations other than the U.S./Mexico border, the median quantity of 

marijuana involved in the offense was 5.2 grams (0.2 ounces). In contrast, the offense 

conduct of simple possession of marijuana offenders arrested at that border involved a 

median quantity of 22,000 grams (48.5 pounds or 776.0 ounces)—a quantity that 

appears in excess of a personal use quantity.5

Weighing the Charges: Simple Possession of 

Drugs in the Federal Criminal Justice System

Melissa K. Reimer

Research Associate

Office of Research and Data
United States Sentencing Commission

2

Federal Simple Possession Offenders

The federal simple possession offenders analyzed in this report were those offenders 

sentenced between fiscal years 2008 and 2013 with a primary offense type of simple 

possession and/or offenders for whom the most serious guideline applied in the offense 

was USSG §2D2.1 (Simple Possession). This methodology identified 2,319 offenders in 

fiscal year 2013. To satisfy the Commission’s statutory research obligation, a wide 

variety of information on offender and offense characteristics is routinely coded in every 

case. For this analysis, the routinely collected data was augmented through a further 

review of these 2,319 cases, collecting more detailed information relating to the events 

surrounding the offense that is not readily available in the Commission’s Offender 

Datasets.

6

 

Recent Trend in Number of Simple Possession Offenders

Between fiscal years 2008 and 2013, the number of federal drug trafficking offenders 

declined 7.7 percent, from 24,080 in 2008 to 22,215 in 2013.7 In contrast, the number of 

federal simple possession offenders increased substantially over the same time period 

(see Figure 1). In fiscal year 2008, there were 467 federal simple possession offenders; 

however, by fiscal year 2013, that number increased 396.6 percent to 2,319 federal 

simple possession offenders.8 This analysis will look more closely at these offenders, 

including an examination of the location where the offender was apprehended and how 

the offender came to the attention of law enforcement.

Figure 1. Trend in Number of Simple Possession Offenders

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013
Simple Possession

3

Analysis

Table 1 (below) shows the number of simple possession offenders by the primary type of 

drug9involved in the offense. As can be seen, the explosive increase in the number of 

simple possession offenders was entirely accounted for by an increase in the number of 

simple possession offenses of a single drug type—marijuana. The number of simple 

possession offenders convicted of possessing marijuana rose 803.8 percent during this 

period (from 240 offenders in fiscal year 2008 to 2,169 offenders in fiscal year 2013). In 

contrast, the remaining simple possession offenders, whose primary drug was not 

marijuana, actually declined by 30.4 percent (from 207 offenders in fiscal year 2008 to 

144 by fiscal year 2013). Marijuana offenders, 

who accounted for 53.7 percent of simple 

possession offenders in fiscal year 2008, 

accounted for nearly all simple possession 

offenders by fiscal year 2013 (93.8%).

Because the marijuana offenders dominated the 

fiscal year 2013 data, combining all simple possession offenders for analysis was 

impractical—the offense and offender characteristics, when combined, largely reflected 

only the characteristics of the marijuana offenders. Separating the marijuana offenders 

from offenders whose offense involved drugs other than marijuana allowed for a more 

precise analysis of the marijuana offenders, however, this left very few non-marijuana 

offenders for further analysis (n=144 in fiscal year 2013). The number of offenders who 

were involved with the simple possession of a drug other than marijuana was insufficient 

to conduct further analysis. Consequently, the remainder of this report focuses on 

simple possession offenders whose primary drug is marijuana.

Table 1. Number of Simple Possession Offenders by Primary Drug Type

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Powder Cocaine 38 8.5 56 8.0 41 4.2 43 5.0 45 3.2 24 1.0

Crack Cocaine 30 6.7 36 5.1 26 2.7 22 2.5 24 1.7 9 0.4

Heroin 16 3.6 20 2.9 9 0.9 16 1.8 16 1.1 11 0.5

Marijuana 240 53.7 500 71.3 804 82.5 686 79.0 1,238 86.6 2,169 93.8

Methamphetamine 74 16.6 44 6.3 52 5.3 53 6.1 45 3.2 49 2.1

Other 49 11.0 45 6.4 43 4.4 48 5.5 62 4.3 51 2.2

TOTAL 447 100.0 701 100.0 975 100.0 868 100.0 1,430 100.0 2,313 100.0

Offenders missing information on primary drug type were excluded from this analysis. Primary drug type was missing because: 1) the type of drug 

involved in the offense was not documented, or 2) the offense involved multiple drug types and insufficient information was available to establish 

which drug would have the highest drug equivalency had the Drug Quantity Table at USSG §2D1.1 been applicable. Totals may not sum to 

100.0% due to rounding. 

Marijuana offenders accounted 

for 93.8% of all simple possession 

offenders in fiscal year 2013.
United States Sentencing Commission

4

Location of Offenses by Judicial District

In fiscal year 2013, 40 districts reported at least one offender who was convicted of 

simple possession of marijuana. The vast majority of the marijuana simple possession 

offenders were sentenced in a single district, the District of Arizona. Of the 2,169 

offenders, 86.7 percent (n=1,880) were sentenced in the District of Arizona. Following 

Arizona, the district with the greatest number of offenders was the Western District of 

Texas with 107 offenders (4.9% of the total) followed by the Eastern District of Virginia 

with 34 offenders (1.6%). Of the remaining districts reporting simple possession 

offenses, the majority reported fewer than ten marijuana simple possession offenders 

(32 districts). Fifteen of these districts sentenced only a single offender and 54 districts 

reported no marijuana possession offenders in fiscal year 2013. 

In contrast, in fiscal year 2008 no single district dominated the simple possession 

caseload. In 2008, the Eastern District of Virginia reported the most marijuana simple 

possession offenders with 26 offenders (10.8% of the total). The District of Wyoming 

reported 21 offenders (8.8%) followed by the Western District of Texas (n=20, 8.3%), the 

Western District of Kentucky (n=19, 7.9%), and the District of Utah (n=12, 5.0%). The 

District of Arizona (which, again, accounted for 86.7% of fiscal year 2013’s caseload) 

reported only nine marijuana simple possession offenders in fiscal year 2008 (3.8% of 

the total). Similar to fiscal year 2013, among districts reporting simple possession 

offenses, the majority reported fewer than ten offenders (36 districts). Thirteen of these 

districts sentenced only a single offender and 51 districts reported no marijuana simple 

possession offenders in fiscal year 2008. 

Table 2. Top 10 Districts Sentencing Marijuana Simple Possession 

Offenders10

 FY08 FY13

District N % District N %

Eastern Virginia 26 10.8 Arizona 1,880 86.7

Wyoming 21 8.8 Western Texas 107 4.9

Western Texas 20 8.3 Eastern Virginia 34 1.6

Western Kentucky 19 7.9 Utah 19 0.9

Utah 12 5.0 Southern California 15 0.7

New Jersey 11 4.6 Eastern North Carolina 11 0.5

Middle Georgia 10 4.2 New Jersey 11 0.5

Arizona 9 3.8 Wyoming 11 0.5

Southern Georgia 9 3.8 South Dakota 9 0.4

Western Oklahoma 9 3.8 Middle Georgia 7 0.3

The table above shows the disproportionate contribution of Arizona to the fiscal year 

2013 data compared to its contribution in fiscal year 2008. Figure 2 re-examines the 

trend in the number of offenders over time graphically, and demonstrates that the 

explosive increase in the number of simple possession of marijuana offenders nationally 

parallels exactly the growth in the number of marijuana possession offenders sentenced 

in the District of Arizona. For all other districts, the trend for simple possession of 
Simple Possession

5

marijuana offenders remained nearly stagnant over the time period, with a slight decline 

in fiscal years 2012 and 2013.11 

Figure 2. Trend in Number of Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders by District

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013

Where Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders Were Apprehended

A document review of the marijuana 

simple possession offenders with 

sufficient information to determine the 

circumstances of their offense 

indicated that most were arrested at or 

near the U.S./Mexico border. Of the 

2,149 marijuana simple possession 

offenders, the vast majority, 91.5 

percent, were arrested at or near that 

border. The second most frequent 

location of arrest was at military bases 

(3.6%), though clearly to a 

substantially lesser extent than at the 

border. National parks accounted for 

2.8 percent of the arrests and the 

remaining four locations identified in 

the coding accounted for less than one 

percent each.

Offenders whose offense occurred at or near the U.S./Mexico border were 

fundamentally different from their non-border counterparts in offender and offense 

characteristics as well as in sentencing outcomes. To illustrate this, for the remainder of 

this analysis, offenders are assigned to one of two categories based on where the arrest 

Table 3. Location of Apprehension

Fiscal Year 2013

N %

U.S./Mexico Border 1,967 91.5

Military Base 77 3.6

National Park 60 2.8

Non-Federal Land 18 0.8

Indian Country 12 0.6

Federal Building 9 0.4

U.S. Highway 6 0.3

TOTAL 2,149 100.0

Of the 2,169 marijuana simple possession offenders 

sentenced in fiscal year 2013, 20 offenders missing 

information on location of offense were excluded from this 

analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 
United States Sentencing Commission

6

occurred. Offenders who were arrested at or near the U.S./Mexico border are assigned 

to the “Border” category while all others are assigned to the “Non-Border” category.12 

Offender Characteristics

There were clear differences between Border and Non-Border offenders with respect to 

gender and citizenship. Nearly all Border offenders were male (91.4%) while NonBorder offenders have a much greater proportion of females (Non-Border 22.9% female;

Border 8.6% female). 

A substantial difference was seen in the citizenship status of Border and Non-Border 

offenders. Among Border offenders, 94.3 percent are not U.S. citizens. This sharply 

contrasts with Non-Border offenders, 83.5 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.

Non-Border offenders were slightly older than Border offenders at the time of 

sentencing. The average age of Non-Border offenders at sentencing was 32 years 

compared to 28 years for Border offenders.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to examine the racial/ethnic make-up of Border offenders 

because this information was missing for all but 11 of the 1,967 Border offenders.13 

Data for Non-Border offenders was more complete, permitting a race/ethnicity analysis. 

Among Non-Border offenders, almost half are White (49.3%).

Table 4. Selected Characteristics of Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders

Fiscal Year 2013

 Border Offenders

 (N=1,967)

Non-Border Offenders

(N=182)

AVERAGE AGE 28 32

RACE/ETHNICITY N % N %

White - - 33 49.3

Black - - 17 25.4

Hispanic - - 7 10.5

Other - - 10 14.9

GENDER

Male 928 91.4 94 77.1

Female 87 8.6 28 22.9

CITIZENSHIP

U.S. Citizen 102 5.7 71 83.5

Non-U.S. Citizen 1,692 94.3 14 16.5

Information on offender race/ethnicity was missing for all but 11 marijuana simple possession offenders located at or 

near the U.S./Mexico border, therefore information on race/ethnicity cannot be presented for this group. Offenders 

missing information required for a given analysis were excluded from that analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due 

to rounding. 
Simple Possession

7

Means of Apprehension

Almost all Border offenders were discovered because they were detained during border 

enforcement activities (96.0%). The remaining Border offenders were discovered as a 

result of an investigation into a non-drug offense (1.3%) or traffic stop (2.3%). An 

additional ten offenders came to law enforcement’s attention as a result of a citizen 

complaint (n=6), by police observation (n=3), or as a result of information provided by an 

offender in custody (n=1). In all of these situations, the offender was apprehended very 

close to the U.S./Mexico border. 

Unlike Border offenders, the means by which Non-Border offenders were discovered 

revealed no specific pattern, showing an almost equal likelihood of being discovered via 

any of the means listed in Table 5. About a quarter of these offenders were discovered 

as a result of an investigation into a non-drug offense (26.6%), while almost another 

quarter came to the attention of law enforcement as a result of a traffic stop (23.9%). An 

additional 19.3 percent were discovered as a result of a checkpoint and 17.4 percent as 

a result of an ongoing drug investigation. 

The remaining 14 offenders came to law enforcement’s attention because: a citizen 

complained (n=4); police smelled the odor of marijuana (n=3); police noticed something 

as they were visiting an individual to check on their welfare (n=3); they were observed by 

police (n=2); marijuana was found while the offender was searching for identification 

(n=1); or police were assisting a stranded motorist (n=1). 

Table 5. Means of Apprehension of Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders

Fiscal Year 2013

 Border

 Offenders

 Non-Border

 Offenders

N % N %

Border Enforcement Apprehension 1,880 96.0 0 0.0

Investigation into Non-Drug Offense 25 1.3 29 26.6

Traffic Stop 44 2.3 26 23.9

Checkpoint 0 0.0 21 19.3

Ongoing Drug Offense Investigation 0 0.0 19 17.4

Other 10 0.5 14 12.8

TOTAL 1,959 100.0 109 100.0

Of the 1,967 marijuana simple possession offenders located at or near the U.S./Mexico border, 8 offenders with 

missing information on the means of apprehension were excluded from this analysis. Of the 182 Non-Border 

marijuana simple possession offenders, 73 offenders with missing information on the means of apprehension were 

excluded from this analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 
8

United States Sentencing Commission 

Means of Apprehension by Location of Arrest14

Border offenders were apprehended exclusively at or near the U.S./Mexico border and, 

as reported in Table 5, they were discovered largely as a result of border enforcement 

activities. 

In contrast, Table 6 demonstrates that there was wide variation in the place and reason 

for apprehension among most of the Non-Border offenders. That said, associations 

between the two factors were identified. Offenders discovered on a military base were 

most often identified because of a security checkpoint (44.7%). An offender discovered 

in a national park was most likely identified because of an investigation into a non-drug 

offense (58.3%). An offender apprehended on non-federal land most likely came to the 

attention of law enforcement as a result of an ongoing drug investigation (82.4%). Not 

unexpectedly, three of the four offenders apprehended on a U.S. highway were 

discovered as a result of a traffic stop and two offenders, found in a federal building, 

were discovered as a result of a standard building security check. 

Table 6. Means of Apprehension by Location of Non-Border Marijuana Simple 

Possession Offenders 

Fiscal Year 2013

Military 

Base

National 

Park

NonFederal 

Land

Indian 

Country

U.S. 

Highway

Federal 

Building

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Border 

Enforcement 

Apprehension

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Investigation into 

Non-Drug 

Offense

5 13.2 21 58.3 1 5.9 2 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Traffic Stop 11 29.0 5 13.9 2 11.8 5 41.7 3 75.0 0 0.0

Checkpoint 17 44.7 1 2.8 0 0.0 1 8.3 0 0.0 2 100.0

Ongoing Drug 

Offense 

Investigation

0 0.0 3 8.3 14 82.4 2 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 5 13.2 6 16.7 0 0.0 2 16.7 1 25.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 38 100.0 36 100.0 17 100.0 12 100.0 4 100.0 2 100.0

Of the 182 Non-Border marijuana simple possession offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2013, 73 offenders with missing 

information on the means of apprehension were excluded from this analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.
Simple Possession

9

Sentencing

There are stark differences between Border and Non-Border offenders in sentencing 

factors and sentencing outcomes. Nearly all Border offenders had little or no prior 

criminal history and were placed in Criminal History Category (CHC) I (99.3%). Far 

fewer Non-Border offenders were in CHC I (64.4%).

Table 7. Sentencing Characteristics for Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders

Fiscal Year 2013

Border

Offenders

 (N=1,967)

Non-Border 

Offenders

(N=182)

MEDIAN DRUG WEIGHT 22,000 grams 5.2 grams

CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY N % N %

Category I 1,515 99.3 85 64.4

Category II 7 0.5 19 14.4

Category III 2 0.1 18 13.6

Category IV 0 0.0 6 4.6

Category V 0 0.0 1 0.8

Category VI 1 0.1 3 2.3

TYPE OF SENTENCE IMPOSED

Prison Only 1,923 97.8 48 26.4

Prison + Community Split 2 0.1 0 0.0

Probation + Confinement 0 0.0 6 3.3

Probation Only 42 2.1 105 57.7

Fine Only 0 0.0 23 12.6

MEDIAN SENTENCE Months Months

6 0

Offenders missing information required for an analysis were excluded from that analysis. The median drug weight analysis 

required an exact drug weight; if a weight range was provided, the weight was treated as missing and excluded from the 

median weight computation. The “Prison and Community Split” category includes all cases in which offenders received prison 

and conditions of confinement as described in USSG §5C1.1. Sentences of probation were included in the median sentence 

computation as zero months. In addition, the median sentence computation includes time of confinement as described in 

USSG §5C1.1. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 

The median sentence for Border offenders was six months and almost all received a 

sentence of imprisonment (97.9%). Non-Border offenders received a prison sentence 

less frequently. Only 26.4 percent of Non-Border offenders received a prison sentence 

while most of the offenders received a sentence of probation only (57.7%) or a sentence 

of a fine only (12.6%).15

Border and Non-Border offenders differed sharply in the amount of marijuana involved in 

the simple possession offense. Non-Border offenders generally were found with only a 

small amount of marijuana. The median weight of marijuana among Non-Border 

offenders was 5.2 grams (0.2 ounces). In contrast, the median weight of the marijuana 

found among Border offenders was 22,000 grams (48.5 pounds or 776.0 ounces).
United States Sentencing Commission

10

Summary

Between fiscal years 2008 and 2013 the total number of federal simple possession 

offenders increased by 396.6 percent. This growth, however, is almost entirely 

accounted for by the substantial growth in simple possession offenses involving 

marijuana. The number of offenders sentenced for simple possession of marijuana 

during this time period increased by 803.8 percent. A single judicial district, the District 

of Arizona, accounted for 86.7% of all marijuana simple possession offenders sentenced 

in fiscal year 2013. The cases from this district are largely responsible for the increase in 

the total number of simple possession cases. If marijuana offenders are excluded from 

the analysis, the number of federal offenders convicted of simple possession of drugs 

each year is very small and actually has 

declined since fiscal year 2008.

Almost all (91.5%) of this large, and 

growing, number of federal simple 

possession of marijuana offenders 

sentenced in fiscal year 2013 were 

apprehended at or near the U.S./Mexico 

border. Offenders apprehended at that 

border and those apprehended away from the border differ in important ways. Among 

offenders with a known means of apprehension, the simple possession of marijuana 

offenders apprehended at the U.S./Mexico border were nearly all apprehended due to 

border enforcement activities (96.0%) or very near the border (4.0%). In contrast, simple 

possession of marijuana offenders arrested away from the border were apprehended at 

a variety of locations, most with exclusive federal jurisdiction such as military bases 

(34.9%) or national parks (33.0%). 

The majority of the Non-Border offenders (almost 70 percent) were identified because of 

a non-drug related event (26.6% because of non-drug related investigation; 23.9% as a 

result of a traffic stop; and 19.3% at checkpoints—primarily at military bases). Most 

offenders (97.9%) apprehended at or near the U.S./Mexico border received a prison 

sentence compared to 26.4 percent of offenders apprehended away from the border. 

Perhaps the most important difference between the two groups is the quantity of drugs 

involved in the offense. Offenders apprehended at or near the U.S./Mexico border were 

arrested with a substantially greater amount of marijuana than Non-Border offenders—

48.5 pounds compared to 5.2 grams—an amount that does not appear to correspond to 

the Office of National Drug Control Policy definition of simple possession of drugs. This 

difference in quantity suggests that the sizable increase in simple possession cases in 

recent years is the result of marijuana drug trafficking cases in which the offender was 

sentenced only for a possession offense. 

The median weight of marijuana 

found among Border offenders 

was 48.5 pounds, an amount 

that does not appear to 

correspond to simple possession.
Simple Possession

11

Endnotes

1 The author gratefully acknowledges Emily Herbst and Kevin Maass for their assistance in reviewing the 

cases and collecting the data augmenting the Commission’s standard fiscal year datafiles. 

2 Neither the statute (21 U.S.C. § 844) nor the guideline (USSG §2D2.1) specify a drug weight for this 

offense. 

3 Jeffrey Robinson, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, WHO'S REALLY IN PRISON FOR MARIJUANA 13 

(2005), https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf.

4 21 U.S.C. § 844. A conviction that occurs after a prior drug related offense has become final triggers a 

mandatory minimum of not less than 15 days in custody, raises the maximum available penalty to two years, 

and increases the fine to a minimum of $2,500. If the conviction occurs after two or more prior convictions 

for drug related offenses have become final, the mandatory minimum penalty becomes 90 days in custody, 

the maximum available penalty is three years, and the minimum fine is $5,000. In order for the enhanced 

felony penalties to apply, the government must meet the procedural requirements set forth in 21 U.S.C. §

851 (proceedings to establish prior convictions). 

5 Under USSG §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession 

with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) an offender convicted of distributing or 

possession with intent to distribute 22,000 grams of marijuana would be subject to a guideline range of 21-

27 months before consideration of any other adjustment or criminal history calculation under the guidelines. 

6 See Appendix for more information. The definition of simple possession offenses used for this analysis 

differs from the definitions used in the Commission’s annual SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING 

STATISTICS. This analysis is limited to offenders sentenced pursuant to a conviction for a Class A 

misdemeanor or felony drug possession offense. This data does not include petty misdemeanor offenders 

whose offense was docketed through the Central Violations Bureau. 

7 Only offenders with complete guideline application information who were sentenced under USSG §§2D1.1 

(Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit 

These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy), 2D1.2 (Drug Offenses Occurring Near Protected Locations or 

Involving Underage or Pregnant Individuals; Attempt or Conspiracy), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise; 

Attempt or Conspiracy), 2D1.6 (Use of Communication Facility in Committing Drug Offense; Attempt or 

Conspiracy), 2D1.8 (Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment; Attempt or Conspiracy), 2D1.10 

(Endangering Human Life While Illegally Manufacturing a Controlled Substance; Attempt or Conspiracy), or 

2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) were included in this analysis. 

8 Although not included in this analysis, the increase in the number of simple possession offenders 

continued in fiscal year 2014 (n=2,350). In fiscal year 2015, the number of offenders fell slightly (n=2,274). 

9 The primary drug type for simple possession offenders is the drug type that would have received the 

highest drug equivalency had the Drug Quantity Table at USSG §2D1.1 been applied. 

10 The eleventh top district that sentenced marijuana simple possession offenders was the Southern District 

of Texas, which sentenced nine marijuana simple possession offenders in fiscal year 2008, and seven 

marijuana simple possession offenders in fiscal year 2013. 

11 The increase in the number of marijuana simple possession offenders continued in fiscal year 2014 with 

2,183 offenders nationwide. The District of Arizona sentenced 1,917 of these offenders. In fiscal year 2015, 

the number of marijuana simple possession offenders nationwide decreased slightly to 2,095 offenders. The 

District of Arizona sentenced 1,775 of those offenders. 

12 The Border category of offenders is largely composed of offenders sentenced in the District of Arizona 

which accounted for 94.7 percent (n=1,863) of the 1,967 Border offenders. 
United States Sentencing Commission

12

Endnotes Continued

13 The presentence report (PSR), written for the Court by a U.S. Probation Officer, is a primary source of 

certain offense and offender information recorded by the Commission. The vast majority of federal cases 

(for example, 91.2% of the fiscal year 2013 cases received by the Commission) include a PSR. However, 

this document can be waived by the Court. A review of the document status for the marijuana simple 

possession offenders found that the PSR, particularly for those offenders sentenced along the U.S./Mexico 

border, was often waived. While demographic and other information is typically extracted from the PSR, 

some of this information may be gleaned from the other available documents sent to the Commission by the 

Courts. These other documents were used for this study when the PSR was not available. Despite 

examination of these other documents, some information could not be found, for example, race/ethnicity of 

the offender. 

14 The rate of missing information on means of apprehension varied by location of arrest. For offenses at the 

U.S./Mexico border, the means of apprehension was missing in less than one percent of the 1,967 cases

(n=8, 0.4%). When the offense occurred on a military base, the means by which the offender came to law

enforcement’s attention was missing in 50.6% of cases (39 of 77 cases). See Appendix for a complete

distribution of missing information for this field.

15 The remaining 3.3 percent of Non-Border offenders received a sentence that included both probation and 

some form of confinement. 
Simple Possession

13

Appendix

Methodology

The Commission receives sentencing documentation on all federal felony and Class A 

misdemeanor cases sentenced during each fiscal year. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(w), 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 other charging document; (5) the presentence report; and 

(6) any other information the Commission requests. For fiscal year 2013, the overall case

submission rate by the district courts was 99.7 percent.

Data from the documents submitted by the courts are extracted and coded for entry into various 

databases. The analysis in this paper started by analyzing data contained in the Offender 

Datasets. To create the Offender Datasets, the Commission routinely collects case identifiers, 

sentencing data, demographic variables, statutory information, the complete range of court 

guideline decisions, and departure and variance information.

The Commission classifies offenses either by the primary offense category, which is statute 

based,1 or by the primary sentencing guideline applied to the offender’s conduct. Information on 

the primary sentencing guideline is typically collected from the Presentence Report (PSR). 

When the PSR is waived, as it is in many simple possession offenses, classification can be 

made using only the statutes of conviction. For this reason, the Commission reports far fewer 

offenders sentenced under USSG §2D2.1 (Simple Possession) than there are with a primary 

offense category of simple possession.2 Furthermore, not all offenders with a primary offense 

category of simple possession are sentenced under USSG §2D2.1, which means their 

sentencing exposure under the guidelines is driven by something other than the simple 

possession conduct.

For this analysis, simple possession offenders are defined as either offenders with a primary

offense category of simple possession and no sentencing guideline available, or offenders 

sentenced under USSG §2D2.1. Offenders with conflicting documentation regarding guideline 

application were excluded from the analysis. 

For this analysis, the Commission augmented the Offender Dataset to collect information that is 

not readily available in that dataset by undertaking a special coding project of simple possession 

offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2013. This was necessary to answer specific questions 

raised by the substantial increase in the number of these offenses reported by the courts 

between fiscal years 2008 and 2013. The special coding project collected information related to 

the location of the offense, how the simple possession offense came to law enforcement’s 

attention, and the means of apprehension. Coders captured information from the offense 

descriptions available in the PSR or, if that document was unavailable, the plea agreement 

and/or charging document. Because of a lack of documentation, these items could not always 

be coded. As a consequence, the number of offenders available for analysis is sometimes less 

than the total number of simple possession offenders identified. 
United States Sentencing Commission

14

Appendix Tables

Table 1. Offenders Missing Means of Apprehension by Location of Offense

Fiscal Year 2013

Total Number of 

Offenders

Number of 

Offenders Missing 

Means of 

Apprehension

% of Offenders 

Missing Means of 

Apprehension

U.S./Mexico Border 1,967 8 0.4

Military Base 77 39 50.6

National Park 60 24 40.0

Non-Federal Land 18 1 5.6

Indian Country 12 0 0.0

Federal Building 9 7 77.8

U.S. Highway 6 2 33.3

TOTAL 2,149 81 3.8

Table 2. Distribution of Marijuana Simple Possession Offenders by District

Fiscal Years 2008 and 2013

CIRCUIT FY08 FY13

District N % N %

TOTAL 240 100.0 2,169 100.0

D.C. CIRCUIT

District of Columbia 0 0.0 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT

Maine 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Hampshire 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0

Table continued on next page
Simple Possession

15

SECOND CIRCUIT

Connecticut 0 0.0 0 0.0

New York

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Northern 5 2.1 0 0.0

 Southern 0 0.0 1 0.1

 Western 4 1.7 2 0.1

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 11 4.6 11 0.5

Pennsylvania

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Middle 2 0.8 0 0.0

 Western 0 0.0 0 0.0

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT

Maryland 3 1.3 0 0.0

North Carolina

 Eastern 7 2.9 11 0.5

 Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Western 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Carolina 1 0.4 0 0.0

Virginia

 Eastern 26 10.8 34 1.6

 Western 1 0.4 0 0.0

West Virginia

 Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0

FIFTH CIRCUIT

Louisiana

 Eastern

Table continued on next page

0 0.0 1 0.1
United States Sentencing Commission

16

 Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Western 3 1.3 3 0.1

Mississippi

 Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0

Texas

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Northern 0 0.0 1 0.1

 Southern 9 3.8 7 0.3

 Western 20 8.3 107 4.9

SIXTH CIRCUIT

Kentucky

 Eastern 1 0.4 0 0.0

 Western 19 7.9 3 0.1

Michigan

 Eastern 1 0.4 0 0.0

 Western 1 0.4 1 0.1

Ohio

 Northern 0 0.0 1 0.1

 Southern 7 2.9 4 0.2

Tennessee

 Eastern 3 1.3 0 0.0

 Middle 2 0.8 1 0.1

 Western 0 0.0 1 0.1

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Illinois

 Central 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Southern 1 0.4 0 0.0

Indiana

 Northern 1 0.4 0 0.0

 Southern

Table continued on next page

0 0.0 0 0.0
Simple Possession

17

Wisconsin

 Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.1

 Western 0 0.0 0 0.0

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Arkansas

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Western 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

 Northern 1 0.4 0 0.0

 Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0

Minnesota 0 0.0 0 0.0

Missouri

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Western 2 0.8 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 0 0.0 1 0.1

South Dakota 0 0.0 9 0.4

NINTH CIRCUIT

Alaska 2 0.8 0 0.0

Arizona 9 3.8 1,880 86.7

California

 Central 1 0.4 4 0.2

 Eastern 4 1.7 1 0.1

 Northern 5 2.1 3 0.1

 Southern 2 0.8 15 0.7

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 1 0.4 0 0.0

Idaho 0 0.0 1 0.1

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nevada 1 0.4 1 0.1

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon

Table continued on next page

0 0.0 0 0.0
United States Sentencing Commission

18

Washington

 Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.1

 Western 4 1.7 4 0.2

TENTH CIRCUIT

Colorado 0 0.0 0 0.0

Kansas 2 0.8 3 0.1

New Mexico 0 0.0 2 0.1

Oklahoma

 Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Northern 1 0.4 0 0.0

 Western 9 3.8 3 0.1

Utah 12 5.0 19 0.9

Wyoming 21 8.8 11 0.5

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Alabama

 Middle 1 0.4 1 0.1

 Northern 4 1.7 1 0.1

 Southern 0 0.0 3 0.1

Florida

 Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Northern 6 2.5 3 0.1

 Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0

Georgia

 Middle 10 4.2 7 0.3

 Northern 5 2.1 2 0.1

 Southern 9 3.8 4 0.2

Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Simple Possession Datafile.
Simple Possession

19

1 See Appendix A of the Commission’s 2013 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS for a detailed 

description of how the primary offense category is determined.

2 See Table 3 in the 2013 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS, which reports 2,332 simple possession 

offenders based on primary offense type compared to Table 33, which reports 189 simple possession offenders 

based on primary sentencing guideline. 

Appendix Endnotes