Report to the Congress:

Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
United States Sentencing Commission 

Patti B. Saris

Chair

Charles R. Breyer

Vice Chair

Dabney L. Friedrich

Commissioner

Rachel E. Barkow

Commissioner

William H. Pryor, Jr.

Commissioner

Jonathan J. Wroblewski

Ex Officio

J. Patricia Wilson Smoot

Ex Officio

August 2015
SECTION ONE................................................................1

Executive Summary............................................................3

Historical Background.......................................................4

SECTION TWO................................................................9

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction........................10

 What has been the impact of the FSA on federal

prosecutorial practices? ...............................................11

 Are crack cocaine sentences more similar to powder

cocaine sentences? ........................................................23

 What has been the impact of the FSA on the federal

prison population? ........................................................26

 Has there been an increase in use of crack cocaine after

the FSA? ........................................................................27

SECTION THREE...........................................................29

Elimination of Mandatory Minimum Sentence for 

Simple Possession ..............................................................30

SECTION FOUR..............................................................31

Increased Fine Penalties for Major Drug Traffickers...32

SECTION FIVE.................................................................33

Enhancements for Acts of Violence during the Course of 

a Drug Trafficking Offense ..............................................34

Increased Emphasis on Defendant’s Role & Certain 

Aggravating Factors ........................................................34

Increased Emphasis on Defendant’s Role & Certain 

Mitigating Factors ..............................................................35

CONCLUSION ..................................................................37

Endnotes ...........................................................................39

Appendix ...........................................................................43

i

Table of Contents

Section One

Section One of this report highlights the Commission’s primary findings on the impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This section also 

provides a historical overview of federal cocaine sentencing policy since 1985. 

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 1
2 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 
The United States Sentencing Commission 

(“the Commission”) submits this report to 

Congress in response to a congressional 

directive contained in section 10 of the Fair 

Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–220, 

124 Stat. 2372 (“FSA”), and pursuant to the 

Commission’s general authority under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 994-995. 

For more than twenty years, the 

Commission has consistently worked with the 

legislative, executive, and judicial branches of 

government and other interested parties to 

ensure that cocaine sentencing policy 

promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform 

Act,1 including avoiding unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar 

criminal records who have been found guilty of 

similar criminal conduct and promoting 

proportionate sentencing. Prior to the FSA, the 

Commission submitted four reports to 

Congress regarding cocaine sentencing, in 

1995, 1997, 2002, and 2007, based on 

legislative history, scientific and medical 

literature, extensive analysis of the 

Commission’s own data, public comment, and 

expert testimony.2

Since 1995, the Commission consistently 

took the position that the 100-to-1 drug 

quantity ratio of crack to powder cocaine 

significantly undermined the congressional 

objectives set forth in the Sentencing Reform 

Act. The Commission reached this conclusion 

based on its core findings regarding crack 

cocaine penalties as they existed before the 

FSA:

• they overstated the relative

harmfulness of crack cocaine compared

to powder cocaine;

• they swept too broadly and applied

most often to lower level offenders;

• they overstated the seriousness of most

crack cocaine offenses and failed to

provide adequate proportionality; and

• their severity mostly impacted

minorities.3

As a result of these findings, the 

Commission recommended that Congress 

reduce crack cocaine penalties so that the 

crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio was no 

more than 20-to-1, and that Congress repeal 

the mandatory minimum penalty for simple 

possession of crack cocaine.4 In 2007, the 

Commission reduced the crack cocaine 

guideline by two levels as an interim measure 

to alleviate some of the problems its reports 

identified.5

Consistent with the Commission’s 

recommendations, the FSA reduced the 

statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses 

to produce an 18-to-1 crack-to-powder drug 

quantity ratio and eliminated the mandatory 

minimum sentence for simple possession of 

crack cocaine.6 The FSA also increased 

statutory fines and directed the Commission 

to amend the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to 

account for specified aggravating and 

mitigating circumstances in drug trafficking 

offenses involving any drug type, not only 

crack cocaine.7 

The FSA also directed the Commission to 

“study and submit to Congress a report 

regarding the impact of the changes in Federal 

sentencing law under this Act and the 

amendments made by this Act.”8 The report 

generally follows the structure of the FSA, first 

analyzing the FSA’s changes to crack cocaine 

penalties, then turning to its changes to 

penalties for federal drug trafficking offenses 

more broadly.

The Commission’s study finds that the FSA 

reduced the disparity between crack and 

powder cocaine sentences, reduced the federal 

prison population, and appears to have 

resulted in fewer federal prosecutions for 

crack cocaine. All this occurred while crack 

cocaine use continued to decline. 

Primary Observations

1. Many fewer crack cocaine offenders

have been prosecuted annually since

the FSA, although the number is still

substantial;

2. The crack cocaine offenders who have

been prosecuted since the FSA are, on

average, not more serious offenders

than those prosecuted before the FSA;

3. Rates of crack cocaine offenders

cooperating with law enforcement

have not changed despite changes in

penalties; and,

4. On average, crack cocaine sentences

are closer to powder cocaine sentences.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 3

Executive Summary
Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy

1985 through 2000

4 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Historical Background
Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy

2000 through 2015

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 5

Historical Background
 The question of how severely to punish 

crack cocaine offenders has vexed Congress, 

the Commission, the courts, and the 

Department of Justice for almost three decades. 

Crack cocaine entered the nation’s 

consciousness with the death of University of 

Maryland basketball player Len Bias on June 

19, 1986, two days after he had been drafted 

by the Boston Celtics. Early, but incorrect, 

reports suggesting that Bias’ death was due to 

crack cocaine use, among other reports of 

increased danger from the new form of 

cocaine, raised concern in Congress.9 

Congress specifically addressed crack 

cocaine as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 

1986.10 Among other things, the 1986 Act 

created statutory mandatory minimum 

penalties that differentiated between powder 

cocaine and crack cocaine.11 Specifically, the 

1986 Act set 5- and 10-year mandatory 

minimum penalties for trafficking in crack and 

powder cocaine based on the amount of the 

drug. The 1986 Act required 100 times as 

much powder cocaine as crack cocaine to 

trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty; 

hence, the 1986 Act’s penalties are described 

as setting a 100-to-1 crack-to-powder drug 

quantity ratio. The 1986 Act’s mandatory 

minimum penalties were the first since the 

near-complete repeal of mandatory minimum 

penalties in 1970.12 

In response to the 1986 Act the Commission 

incorporated the mandatory minimum 

penalties into the guidelines by setting the 

drug quantity thresholds in the Drug Quantity 

Table so as to provide base offense levels

(levels 26 and 32) corresponding to guideline 

ranges that were above the statutory 

mandatory minimum penalties.13 

Congress acted again by passing the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988, which among other 

things made first time simple possession of 

crack cocaine an offense punishable by a 

mandatory minimum penalty, the only drug so 

punished.14 

In the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, Congress directed 

the Commission to study and report on federal 

cocaine sentencing policy.15 Concurrently, the 

Commission worked with Congress to 

implement a statutory “safety valve” provision 

that would permit courts to sentence certain 

low-level, non-violent drug offenders below 

the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum 

penalty, including crack cocaine offenders.16 

In February 1995, the Commission sent to 

Congress the first of four reports on federal 

cocaine sentencing policy.17 In the 1995 

Report, the Commission strongly 

recommended against the 100-to-1 crack-topowder drug quantity ratio and also 

recommended that Congress revisit the 

penalties applicable to crack cocaine simple 

possession.18 

Acting on its 1995 findings, the Commission 

voted to amend the guidelines to adopt a 1-to-1 

crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio and added 

new sentencing enhancements for violence and 

other harms associated with crack cocaine.19 

Before the guideline amendment took effect, 

Congress rejected the proposed amendment 

and directed the Commission to again study 

federal cocaine sentencing policy.20 

In response to this directive, the 

Commission issued its 1997 report, reiterating 

the 1995 Report’s recommendation that 

Congress revisit both the 100-to-1 crack-topowder drug quantity ratio and the mandatory 

minimum penalty for simple possession of 

crack cocaine.21 

In 2002, responding to congressional 

interest, the Commission published its third 

report on federal cocaine sentencing policy.22 

In the 2002 Report, the Commission 

recommended a crack-to-powder drug 

quantity ratio of not more than 20-to-1 and 

that Congress repeal the mandatory minimum 

penalty for simple possession of crack 

cocaine.23 

1985 1990 1995 2000

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

VCCLEA of 1994

1995 USSC Report

1997 USSC Report

2002 USSC Report

6 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Historical Background
 A 2005 Supreme Court decision rendering

the guidelines advisory24 led to a series of 

cases addressing whether and to what degree 

the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder drug quantity 

ratio applied in a given case.25 Ultimately, the 

Supreme Court held that a sentencing judge 

may consider the disparity between the 

guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder 

cocaine when determining a sentencing range 

and that the sentencing judge has the authority 

to substitute a crack-to-powder drug quantity 

ratio different than 100-to-1 to avoid that 

disparity.26 

In 2007, due to its ongoing concern about 

the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder drug quantity 

ratio, the Commission lowered the guideline 

for crack cocaine offenses.27 This reduction

resulted in base offense levels for crack cocaine 

corresponding to guideline ranges that 

included, rather than exceeded, the statutory 

mandatory minimum penalties.28 

Subsequently, the Commission made the 

reduction retroactive, allowing courts to 

reduce the sentences of incarcerated offenders 

whose sentences had been based on the higher 

guideline.29 

 Policies of the Department of Justice may 

also impact crack cocaine sentences. Since 

2003, Department of Justice policy had 

directed prosecutors to charge the most 

serious, readily provable offenses supported by 

the facts; the most serious offense was that 

which would result in the longest sentence.30 

Subsequent guidance in 2010 shifted the focus 

of the charging decision to the prosecutor’s 

assessment of each individual case.31 This 

policy was further modified in 2013, when the 

Department of Justice specified criteria for the 

subset of drug cases in which prosecutors were 

to seek mandatory minimum sentences.32 

On August 3, 2010, Congress enacted the 

FSA, which effectively reduced the 100-to-1 

crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio to 18-

to-1.

33 The FSA also eliminated the 

mandatory minimum for simple possession 

of crack cocaine.34 

Enactment of the FSA triggered responses

from the Commission, the Department of

Justice, and the Supreme Court. In 2011, the

Commission implemented the FSA’s new

penalties in the guidelines and subsequently

made the changes retroactive.35 The 

Department of Justice issued guidance that the

FSA’s new penalties applied to sentencings

occurring on or after August 3, 2010,

regardless of when the offense took place.36

Finally, the Supreme Court held that the FSA’s

penalties applied to offenses committed prior

to August 3, 2010, but sentenced after that

date.37

In 2014, after the FSA was fully 

implemented, the Commission separately 

reduced the drug guidelines for all drugs, 

including crack cocaine, by two levels, and 

made this change retroactive.38 In order to 

accurately report the effect of the FSA, data 

that could be affected by this later Commission 

action is excluded. This exclusion is based on 

time; where data might be affected by the 2014 

drug amendment, the report will include data 

only through fiscal year 2013. 

Each year the Commission collects data 

regarding every felony and class A 

misdemeanor offense sentenced during that 

year and analyzes it to provide information to 

policy-makers and the federal criminal justice 

community. For this report the Commission 

primarily used data from these publiclyreleased data sets. This was augmented by 

data derived from a special coding project on 

the function cocaine offenders played in the 

offense. For specific information about 

methodology and further detail relating to any 

figure in this report, see the Appendix. 

2005 2010

Booker v. United States

Kimbrough v. United States Spears v. United States

Crack -2 amendment Fair Sentencing Act 

FSA guideline amendments

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 7

Historical Background
8 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 
Section Two 

Section Two of this report analyzes the impact of Section Two of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 related to Cocaine Sentencing Disparity 

Reduction. 

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 9
Section 2 of the FSA reduced the statutory 

mandatory minimum penalties for crack 

cocaine offenses involving manufacturing or 

trafficking in crack cocaine by increasing the 

quantity thresholds required to trigger a 

mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.39 

The quantity threshold required to trigger the 

5-year mandatory minimum term of 

imprisonment was increased from 5 grams to 

28 grams, and the quantity threshold required 

to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum 

term of imprisonment was increased from 50 

grams to 280 grams.40 

As directed by the FSA, the Commission 

conformed the drug guideline penalty 

structure for crack cocaine offenses to the 

amended statutory quantities.41 The base 

offense levels for crack cocaine were set in the 

Drug Quantity Table so that the statutory 

minimum penalties corresponded to levels 26 

and 32.42 Accordingly, using the new drug 

quantities established by the FSA, offenses 

involving 28 grams or more of crack cocaine 

were assigned a base offense level of 26, 

offenses involving 280 grams or more of crack 

cocaine were assigned a base offense level of 

32, and other offense levels for other quantities 

were established by extrapolating upward and 

downward.43 Because of these amendments, 

the statutory changes in the FSA impacted the 

sentences of crack cocaine offenders sentenced 

after the FSA, regardless of whether a 

mandatory minimum applied. Therefore, even 

though the FSA itself only changed the two 

mandatory minimum penalties for crack 

cocaine trafficking offenses, studying the 

impact of the FSA requires studying all crack 

cocaine offenders. 

Some possible impacts of the FSA’s 

reduction in crack cocaine penalties are 

beyond the scope of this report. For example, 

the FSA could have caused an increase in 

prosecutions of crack cocaine offenses by state 

and local governments. The Commission has 

not yet been able to find adequate information 

to study this question due to the large number 

of state and local jurisdictions and their 

differing practices regarding data collection 

and reporting. 

The Commission has observed in other 

populations of crack cocaine offenders that 

those released early as a result of retroactive 

guideline amendments did not show a 

statistically significant increase in the 

likelihood of recidivating.44 The Commission 

intends to separately study the group of crack 

cocaine offenders released early as a result of 

the FSA amendments to determine whether 

their recidivism rates follow the same pattern.

Public perceptions of fairness have also 

been and continue to be an important concern 

of Congress and the Commission. Although a 

study of perceptions of fairness is beyond the 

scope of this report, the Commission 

acknowledges the importance of the issue and 

encourages further study.

Pre-FSA

Crack

Quantity

Post-FSA

Crack

Quantity

21 U.S.C. § 841

5-yr min 5 g 28 g

 10-yr min 50 g 280 g

21 U.S.C. § 960

5-yr min 5 g 28 g

 10-yr min 50 g 280 g

Research Questions

To study the impact of the FSA’s reduction in crack cocaine penalties, the 

Commission has asked the following questions:

 What has been the impact of the FSA on federal prosecutorial practices?

• On the number of cases prosecuted?

• On the characteristics of the offenses prosecuted?

• On the characteristics of the offenders prosecuted?

 Are crack cocaine sentences more similar to powder cocaine sentences?

 What has been the impact of the FSA on the federal prison population?

 Has there been an increase in use of crack cocaine after the FSA?

10 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
Beginning just prior to the FSA and 

accelerating after it, there has been a steep 

reduction in the number of crack cocaine 

offenders sentenced in the federal system. 

Between 2010, the last year before the FSA

took effect, and 2014, the number of crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced in the federal 

system decreased by half. 

The number of crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced in the federal system increased 

dramatically during the 1990s, and saw 

another increase between 2004 and 2008, but 

began to decrease after 2008, and decreased 

more steeply after the FSA. 

As discussed in the Historical Background, 

a number of events which affected the 

sentences for crack cocaine offenders occurred 

in the years immediately preceding the FSA. 

For example, the Commission reduced the 

guidelines for crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced in 2008,45 and around this same 

time the Supreme Court held that sentencing 

judges could impose lower sentences based on 

their disagreement with the 100-to-1 crack-topowder drug quantity ratio.46 The number of 

crack cocaine offenders sentenced began to fall 

during this time period. 

After the FSA, the number of crack cocaine 

offenders declined more steeply: 4,730 crack 

cocaine offenders were sentenced in 2010, and 

2,366 crack cocaine offenders were sentenced 

in 2014. Despite the large decrease, crack 

cocaine was still the fourth-most commonly 

sentenced drug type in 2014, more common 

than heroin, but less common than 

methamphetamine, powder cocaine, and 

marijuana.47 

What has been the impact of the 

FSA on federal prosecutorial 

practices? 

Figure 1A.

Number of Powder Cocaine 

and Crack Cocaine Trafficking 

Offenders,

Fiscal Years 1992-2014

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA 

Datafiles. For additional data and source 

information, see Appendix.

In 2014, approximately half 

as many crack cocaine 

offenders were sentenced in 

the federal system as had 

been sentenced in 2010.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 11

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
After the FSA, the composition of the drug 

caseload in many judicial districts changed 

substantially. 

As Figure 3A below reflects, in 2010, crack 

cocaine was the most commonly-sentenced 

drug in nearly 40% of all federal judicial 

districts (n=36 of the 94 judicial districts); in 

2014, it was the most commonly-sentenced 

drug in less than 10% of all districts (n=9).

Notwithstanding the large change in the 

number of offenders sentenced after the FSA, 

the demographic characteristics of crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced after the FSA are 

substantially the same as the demographic 

characteristics of those sentenced before the 

FSA. 

As the table to the right illustrates, male 

offenders continued to make up the large 

majority of crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA. The race and ethnicity of crack cocaine 

offenders was also largely unchanged after the 

FSA; both before and after the FSA, more than 

three-quarters of crack cocaine offenders were 

Black. The next-largest group of crack cocaine 

offenders continued to be Hispanic offenders, 

with White offenders making up a slightly 

smaller percentage.

Figure 3A.

Districts with Crack Cocaine 

as the Primary Drug Type, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2014

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

In 2014, crack cocaine was 

the most commonlysentenced drug in only 9 of 

94 federal judicial districts, 

down from 36 in 2010.

Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2014

Figure 2.

Selected Characteristics of 

Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Year 

2010

Fiscal Year

2014

Race/Ethnicity

 Black 78.7% 83.4%

 Hispanic 13.0% 8.6%

 White 7.3% 6.5%

 Other 1.1% 1.5%

Gender

Male 91.6% 90.2%

Female 8.4% 9.8%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see Appendix.

12 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
Federal drug statutes set an individual 

offender’s statutory penalty primarily based on 

the quantity of the type of drug involved in the 

offense.48 Similarly, drug quantity is the 

primary factor that determines the offense 

level under the federal sentencing guidelines.49 

Given the significance of drug quantity in the 

statutory penalty scheme and the guideline 

range, a higher quantity of drugs would be an 

indicator of a more serious offender. Therefore, 

if crack cocaine offenders sentenced since the 

FSA were, on average, more serious than those 

sentenced before the FSA, we may expect an 

increase in the median drug quantity for which 

those offenders are accountable. The median 

drug quantity is the single middle level of the 

drug quantity of all crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced in that year. 

As Figure 4A below illustrates, median 

drug quantities for crack cocaine offenders 

have increased somewhat since the FSA, 

continuing a trend that started before the FSA. 

The drug guideline sets the base offense level 

by specifying a single offense level for a range 

of quantities. Before the FSA, the guidelines 

provided a single base offense level for any 

crack cocaine offender accountable for 

between 50 grams and 150 grams; after the 

FSA, the guidelines provide a single base 

offense level for any crack cocaine offender 

accountable for between 28 and 112 grams. 

The median drug quantity in each year in 

Figure 4A would fall within either of these 

ranges.

Although they are responsible for a 

somewhat larger quantity of drugs, crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced after the FSA are 

not, on average, more serious as measured by 

drug quantity.

Are crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA more serious as measured by drug 

quantity?

Figure 4A.

Median Drug Weight in Crack 

Cocaine Trafficking Offenses, 

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix.

Crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced since the FSA 

have been responsible for 

more drugs than those 

sentenced before the FSA.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 13

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
 Because a crack cocaine offender’s base 

offense level under the guidelines is primarily 

determined by drug quantity, studying the base 

offense level of crack cocaine offenders is 

another way to look at drug quantity. The 

median base offense level of crack cocaine 

offenders in a given year is the single middle 

level of the base offense levels of all crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced in that year. 

 As Figure 5A below demonstrates, the 

median base offense level for crack cocaine 

offenders has decreased significantly over 

time. However, as Figure 4A above showed, 

the median drug quantity for crack cocaine 

offenders has changed only somewhat over 

time. Therefore, the changes in the median 

base offense level are attributable to changes 

to the Drug Quantity Table in 2007 and 2010. 

The table to the right demonstrates one way 

to use each year’s median base offense level to 

understand the significance of the FSA’s 

changes to crack cocaine penalties. Before the 

FSA the median base offense level generally 

corresponded to a 10-year sentence; after the 

FSA, the median base offense level generally 

corresponded to a 5-year sentence. 

Figure 5A.

Median Base Offense Level in Crack 

Cocaine Trafficking Offenses, 

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA 

Datafiles. For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

Since median drug quantity has 

changed only somewhat over time, 

changes in the median base 

offense level result from changes 

in the penalties themselves.

Fiscal 

Year BOL

Crack 

cocaine 

quantity 

(grams) 

Guideline 

range in 

months

(CHC I)

2005 32 50-150 121-151

2006 32 50-150 121-151

2007 32 50-150 121-151

2008 30 50-150 97-121

2009 30 50-150 97-121

2010 30 50-150 97-121

2011 26 28-112 63-78

2012 26 28-112 63-78

2013 26 28-112 63-78

14 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
 The Commission has periodically studied

samples of the federal drug trafficking 

population to assess the function that those 

offenders performed in the drug trafficking 

offense by reviewing the offense conduct 

section of the presentence report and 

independently assessing the function the 

individual performed. The Commission 

assigned each offender to one of 21 separate 

function categories, listed in Appendix Figure 

6C, and then grouped them into six categories 

for purposes of presenting the data in Figure

6A below. The six categories are displayed 

from most serious to least serious, from left to 

right, in Figure 6A. The categories are:

• High-Level Suppliers (including

importers) and Organizers/Leaders

• Manufacturers

• Wholesalers

• Managers/Supervisors

• Street-Level Dealers

• Low Level (including brokers, couriers,

mules, and others)

If an offender performed more than one 

function, the most serious function controlled. 

A comparison between the two right-most 

bars in Figure 6A shows what percentage of 

offenders performed each function before and 

after the FSA (in 2009 and 2013). This 

comparison reveals little change in the 

functions performed by crack cocaine 

offenders. Street-level dealer continued to be 

the function most often performed by crack 

cocaine trafficking offenders after the FSA.

Do crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA perform higher level functions in 

the offense?

Figure 6A.

Most Serious Function of Crack 

Cocaine Trafficking Offenders,

Select Fiscal Year Samples

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

Crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced since the FSA have, 

on the whole, performed 

largely the same functions as 

those sentenced before the 

FSA.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 15

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
If weapons are involved in a crack cocaine 

offense, the offender’s sentence may be 

increased by a statute (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) or

the guidelines (§2D1.1(b)(1)). Taken together, 

these provisions can indicate how often 

weapons are involved in crack cocaine offenses 

in the federal system. As Figure 7A below 

demonstrates, these provisions were no more 

likely to apply to crack cocaine offenders 

sentenced after the FSA than before it. 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) provides for a mandatory 

minimum term of imprisonment for the 

possession, use, brandishing, or discharging of 

a firearm during and in relation to a drug 

trafficking offense. The sentence imposed 

pursuant to section 924(c) must be consecutive 

to any sentence imposed for the underlying 

drug trafficking offense, and must be at least 5 

years long. 

Separately, the guidelines provide a 2-level 

enhancement to a drug guideline range 

because of the increased risk of violence when 

drug traffickers possess weapons. The 

enhancement is to be applied unless it is 

clearly improbable that the weapon was 

connected to the offense. However, the 

guidelines also provide that if the offender’s 

sentence is being increased due to a section 

924(c) conviction for a given weapon, the 

guideline weapon enhancement does not also 

apply for that weapon. 

Figure 7A.

Rate of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 

§2D1.1 Weapon SOC for Crack

Cocaine Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Crack cocaine offenders 

after the FSA were not more 

likely to have had weapons

involved in the offense.

Are crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA more serious because their 

offenses more often involve weapons?

16 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The aggravating role guideline provides for 

an increase to the offense level if the offender

organized, led, managed, or supervised others 

involved in the offense.50 Crack cocaine 

offenders who have been sentenced since the 

FSA are slightly more likely to have played an 

aggravating role in the criminal offense than 

those offenders sentenced before the FSA. 

Generally, the guideline provides a 4-level 

increase if the offender was an organizer or 

leader of a criminal activity with five or more 

participants or which was otherwise extensive; 

a 3-level increase if the offender was a 

manager or supervisor of a criminal activity 

with five or more participants or which was 

otherwise extensive; and a 2-level increase if 

the offender was an organizer, leader, manager 

or supervisor of any other criminal activity.51 

To qualify as an organizer or leader, the 

offender must have exercised a significant 

degree of control and decision making over the 

criminal activity.52 To qualify as a manager or 

supervisor, the offender must have either 

exercised some degree of control over others 

involved in the offense or must have been 

responsible for organizing others for the 

purpose of carrying out the offense.53 

As Figure 8A below demonstrates, these 

provisions have rarely applied to crack cocaine 

offenders both before and after the FSA. 

Are crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA more serious because they more 

often oversaw the involvement of 

others?

Figure 8A.

Rate of Aggravating Role 

Application for Crack Cocaine

Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Crack cocaine offenders sentenced 

after the FSA were slightly more 

likely to have organized, led, 

managed or supervised others in 

the offense than those sentenced 

before the FSA.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 17

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The mitigating role guideline provides for a 

decrease to the offense level if an offender’s 

role makes him substantially less culpable than 

the average participant, based on the totality of 

the circumstances.54 The rate at which crack 

cocaine offenders received a decrease under 

this provision has remained relatively stable 

after the FSA. 

Generally, the guideline provides that a 

court may apply a 4-level decrease if the 

offender was a “minimal” participant in a 

criminal activity; a 2-level decrease if the 

offender was a “minor” participant in a 

criminal activity; and a 3-level decrease if the 

offender’s role fell between minor and 

minimal.55 The guideline explains that a 

minimal participant is one who is “plainly 

among the least culpable of those involved in 

the conduct of the group” and may lack 

“knowledge or understanding of the scope and 

structure of the enterprise and of the activities 

of others.”56 

A minor participant is one who is “less 

culpable than most other participants, but 

whose role cannot be described as minimal.”57 

As Figure 9A below demonstrates, these 

provisions have rarely applied to crack cocaine 

offenders both before and after the FSA. 

Are crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA more serious because they are less 

likely to have played a 

mitigating role?

Figure 9A.

Rate of Mitigating Role Application 

for Crack Cocaine Trafficking

Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Crack cocaine offenders sentenced 

after the FSA were equally likely to 

have been among the least 

culpable in the offense as those 

sentenced before the FSA.

18 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The guidelines assign offenders to one of six 

criminal history categories, with Criminal 

History Category I for offenders with the least 

serious prior criminal records (including firsttime offenders) and Criminal History Category 

VI for offenders with the most extensive prior 

criminal records.58 An offender’s criminal 

history category is calculated by scoring prior 

sentences based on their length and the type of 

offense, among other factors.59 The criminal 

history category, when combined with the 

offense level, determines the offender’s 

guideline range.60 

As Figure 10A below demonstrates, the 

criminal histories of crack cocaine offenders 

have remained relatively stable over time. One 

category that has seen a small but consistent 

increase in recent years has been those 

offenders in the highest category, Category VI. 

Beginning in 2007 the percentage of crack 

cocaine offenders in Category VI increased by a 

few percentage points, and generally stayed at 

that slightly higher level. One explanation for 

this increase is that Category VI contains two 

types of offenders: those whose prior 

sentences generated enough points to put them 

in Category VI, and those who are Career 

Offenders, who receive criminal history points 

for two prior convictions for either a drug 

trafficking offense or a crime of violence, or 

both.61 As Figure 11A on the next page will 

demonstrate, the percentage of crack cocaine 

offenders who were Career Offenders under 

that guideline accounts for the increase in 

Category VI offenders. 

Do crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA have more serious 

criminal histories?

Figure 10A.

Trend in Criminal History 

Category for Crack Cocaine 

Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Overall criminal histories of 

crack cocaine offenders have 

remained relatively stable, 

except for a small variation in 

the highest category.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 19

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The Career Offender guideline provides that 

an offender convicted of a crime of violence or 

a drug trafficking offense who receives 

criminal history points for two prior 

convictions for either a crime of violence or a 

drug trafficking offense, or both, is 

automatically in Criminal History Category 

VI.62 It also provides an increased offense level

for a Career Offender, meaning that the 

offender’s sentence will be at or near the 

statutory maximum.63 As such, the Career 

Offender provision typically results in a 

substantial increase in the offender’s guideline 

range. 

The percentage of crack cocaine offenders 

who are Career Offenders, therefore, can be 

seen as a separate measure of the seriousness 

of crack cocaine offenders’ criminal histories, 

because the Career Offender guideline uses a 

different set of criteria from the criteria that 

set the Criminal History Category of a nonCareer Offender. 

The trend of increasing percentages of 

Career Offenders among crack cocaine 

offenders began in 2007, and continued after 

the FSA. This increase corresponds to the 

increase in offenders sentenced in Criminal 

History Category VI, seen in Figure 10A. 

The correspondence indicates that variation 

in the percentage of crack cocaine offenders in 

Criminal History Category VI sentenced after 

the FSA occurred because of differences in how 

many offenders had two qualifying prior 

crimes of violence or drug trafficking offenses, 

not because of a more general increase in 

offenders’ criminal histories. 

Figure 11A.

Rate of Career Offender 

Application for Crack Cocaine 

Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

Crack cocaine offenders 

have been more likely to be 

Career Offenders over time, 

a trend that continued 

after the FSA.

20 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
As seen in Figure 11A on the previous page, 

the percentage of crack cocaine offenders who 

are Career Offenders has increased. Further 

study reveals that this increase is 

disproportionately concentrated in crack 

cocaine offenders who are accountable for 

relatively small quantities of drugs.

Drug quantity is the primary determinant of 

an offender’s base offense level (BOL) under 

the guidelines. Therefore, an offender’s BOL

can be studied as a proxy for drug quantity. By 

examining Career Offender rates of crack 

cocaine offenders whose BOLs fell into low, 

middle and high ranges, we can study the 

increase in Career Offenders among crack 

cocaine offenders with more specificity. 

Figure 12A below displays generally the 

same information as Figure 11A (the rate of 

crack cocaine offenders who are Career 

Offenders in a given year) but breaks the group 

of crack cocaine offenders into three smaller 

groups: those with low BOLs (green), middle 

BOLs (yellow), and high BOLs (red). 

By breaking the crack cocaine offenders 

who are also Career Offenders into BOL groups, 

we can see that the increases in the Career 

Offender rate among crack cocaine offenders 

with the lowest quantity (in green) followed a 

similar pattern to the increases in Career 

Offender among all crack cocaine offenders, 

increasing in 2007 and again in 2010, with a 

final increase in 2013. Although there were 

increases in some years, the same pattern does 

not appear among the offenders in the middle 

and higher categories (yellow and red). 

Similarly, the rate of Career Offenders among 

crack cocaine offenders with low BOLs 

increased more than the rate among middle 

and high BOLs. This difference shows that, 

after the FSA, a crack cocaine offender who is 

accountable for a relatively small amount of 

drugs is more likely to be a Career Offender 

than a crack cocaine offender with a similar 

quantity before the FSA.

Figure 12A.

Career Offender Application by 

Base Offense Level for Crack 

Cocaine Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

The increase in crack cocaine 

offenders sentenced as Career 

Offenders is more consistent

among those accountable for 

the lowest quantities of drugs.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 21

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
Certain drug offenders can be sentenced 

below the quantity-based statutory mandatory 

minimum penalty based on the so-called 

“safety valve” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and 

the guideline that implements it.64 In order to 

qualify for the safety valve, the offender must 

not have more than one criminal history point, 

must not have used violence or weapons, must 

not have been an organizer or leader, must not 

have engaged in a continuing criminal 

enterprise, and must have provided, in a timely 

manner, all information about the offense to 

the government. In addition, the offense must 

not have resulted in death or serious bodily 

injury. Under the drug guideline, offenders 

meeting these criteria also receive a separate 

2-level reduction in their drug offense level, 

even if they were not convicted of an offense 

carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.65

 The rate at which crack cocaine offenders 

have received safety valve reductions has 

decreased after the FSA, continuing a trend 

that began in 2009. Because there are multiple 

requirements for safety valve relief, and failure 

to meet any one of the requirements will 

disqualify an offender, it is unlikely that a 

single factor caused this decrease. As Figures 

7A, 8A, and 11A illustrated, in some or all of the 

years during this period there were small 

increases in the rate of crack cocaine offenders 

who were Career Offenders, who received the 

aggravating role adjustment, and whose 

offenses involved weapons. Any of these 

factors could disqualify an offender from safety 

valve relief. Therefore, any one of these 

factors, or more likely some combination of 

them, likely caused the decrease in safety valve 

application. 

Are crack cocaine offenders after the 

FSA less likely to receive safety valve 

relief?

Figure 13A.

Rate of Safety Valve Application for 

Crack Cocaine Trafficking 

Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Crack cocaine offenders

received lower sentences due to 

the safety valve at slightly lower 

rates after the FSA.

22 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
Although the FSA only changed the 

statutory penalties for crack cocaine, one goal 

of the statute was to reduce the disparity 

between the penalties for crack cocaine and 

powder cocaine.66 As Figure 14A below 

demonstrates, average crack cocaine sentences 

are decreasing and as a result becoming more 

similar to average powder cocaine sentences, 

which have stayed relatively stable over time. 

As discussed in the Historical Background, 

after the FSA the Commission conformed the 

drug guideline penalty structure for crack 

cocaine offenses to the amended statutory 

quantities as directed by the FSA.67 Because of 

these amendments, the statutory changes in 

the FSA impacted the guideline ranges of crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced after the FSA, 

regardless of whether a mandatory minimum 

applied. Generally, these changes resulted in 

lower guideline ranges. 

As the previous figures have shown, there 

has been no sizeable increase in offense 

seriousness for crack cocaine offenders as 

measured by drug quantity, weapon 

involvement, and role adjustments. There has 

also been no overall increase in criminal 

history of crack cocaine offenders.

The relative stability in offense and offender 

characteristics and the decreased guideline 

penalties have combined to result in the 

decrease in average crack cocaine sentences 

since the FSA. Because average sentences for 

powder cocaine remained relatively stable 

during this period, these lower average

sentences for crack cocaine are now closer to 

average sentences for powder cocaine.

Are crack cocaine sentences after the 

FSA more similar to powder cocaine 

sentences?

Figure 14A.

Average Sentence Imposed for 

Crack Cocaine and Powder 

Cocaine Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Average sentences for crack 

cocaine offenders are closer 

to average sentences for 

powder cocaine offenders 

after the FSA.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 23

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For 

additional data and source information, see Appendix. 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
 One way the Commission assesses the 

impact of the guidelines is to compare the 

average sentence imposed for a given group of 

offenders to the bottom of the applicable 

guideline range for those offenders. Due to 

factors such as departures for substantial 

assistance to authorities, the average sentence 

imposed is typically lower than the bottom of 

the average guideline range. If the guidelines 

have an anchoring effect on sentences, then as 

the average guideline minimum increases, the 

average sentence increases, and as the average 

guideline minimum decreases, the average 

sentence also decreases. 

As Figure 14B below illustrates, before the 

Commission reduced the guidelines for crack 

cocaine in 2007, the relationship between the 

guidelines and sentences was relatively 

consistent. Generally, as the average guideline 

minimum increased, the average sentence 

increased, and as the average guideline 

minimum decreased, the average sentence also 

decreased. 

Between 2008 and the FSA, the gap 

between the average guideline minimum and 

the average sentence widened, suggesting that 

the guidelines’ influence was diminishing. This 

would be consistent with several events during 

this time period, including the Supreme Court’s 

decisions in Kimbrough and Spears, which 

could have contributed to sentences further 

from the guidelines. However, after the FSA, 

the relationship between the guidelines and 

sentences regained its consistency.

How do the guidelines affect crack 

cocaine sentences after the FSA?

Figure 14B.

Average Guideline Minimum 

and Average Sentence 

Imposed for Crack Cocaine 

Trafficking Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

After the FSA, the guidelines

appear to have regained their 

relationship to crack cocaine 

sentences.

24 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The effect of the guidelines on sentences 

can also be seen by studying how often 

sentences are within, above or below the 

guideline range. Figure 15A below divides all 

crack cocaine sentences imposed in a given 

year into one of five categories: within the 

guideline range (red); above the guideline 

range (yellow); and below the guideline range 

for one of three reasons: due to a substantial 

assistance motion from the government

(purple); due to another governmentsponsored motion, such as an “Early 

Disposition Program” or a binding plea 

agreement to a sentence below the guideline 

range (blue); or for a reason not sponsored by 

the government, such as a defense motion or 

the court’s own motion (green). 

Figure 15A illustrates two trends in crack 

cocaine sentences. First, the rate of sentences 

that were below the guideline due to a 

government substantial assistance motion 

(purple) remained stable throughout the 2005-

2013 period, indicating that the reductions in 

penalties during this period did not generally 

reduce the willingness of offenders to provide 

assistance to the government in the 

prosecution of others. 

Second, between 2008 and 2010, the rate of 

within-guideline range sentences (red) 

decreased. The decrease is explained primarily 

by an increase in the non-government 

sponsored below range sentences (green). 

There is also an increase in the rate of 

sentences below the guideline range that were 

sponsored by the government for reasons 

other than substantial assistance (blue). After 

the FSA, the rate of below-range sentences 

initiated by the defendant or the court (green) 

reduced and became stable, but the rate of 

sentences below the guideline range that were 

sponsored by the government for reasons 

other than substantial assistance (blue) 

increased. 

Figure 15A.

Position of Sentences Relative 

to the Guideline Range for 

Crack Cocaine Trafficking 

Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix. 

Substantial assistance rates 

appear to have been 

unaffected by reductions in 

crack cocaine penalties, 

including the FSA.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 25

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
The Commission has identified two impacts 

of the FSA on the federal prison population that 

it can estimate. One is the impact that the 

guideline reductions the Commission made in 

response to the FSA will have going forward, 

comparing the sentences of those offenders 

sentenced after the FSA with the sentences 

they would have received had the FSA not 

reduced their sentences. The second is the 

impact of the Commission’s decision to 

retroactively apply the guideline reductions it 

made in response to the FSA to persons 

sentenced before the FSA.

To estimate the prospective impact that the

guideline reductions will have, the Commission

analyzed drug trafficking offenders who were 

sentenced three years after the FSA, and 

determined, based on their drug quantity, what 

their guideline range would have been under 

the pre-FSA statutory and guideline scheme. 

Of the drug trafficking offenders sentenced 

during this time period, 5,984 offenders would 

have had a higher sentence under the pre-FSA 

statutory and guideline scheme. These 

offenders received average sentences of 71 

months; had the FSA not passed, their average 

sentence would have been 106 months. Based 

on this difference, the Commission estimates 

that the FSA will result in a savings of 15,320

bed-years to the Bureau of Prisons.68

The retroactive impact on the federal prison 

population resulted from the Commission’s

determination that the changes it made to the 

guidelines in order to implement the FSA’s 

changes to crack cocaine penalties should 

apply to offenders who had previously been 

sentenced under the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder 

drug quantity ratio. The Commission 

concluded that the statutory changes in the 

FSA “reflect[ed] congressional action 

consistent with the Commission’s long-held 

position that the then-existing statutory 

penalty structure for crack cocaine 

significantly undermine[d] the various 

congressional objectives set forth in the 

Sentencing Reform Act and elsewhere.” As of 

December 2014, 6,880 crack cocaine offenders 

had received reduced sentences; the 

Commission estimates that these reductions 

will result in a savings of 14,333 bed-years to 

the Bureau of Prisons. 

In total, the prospective and retroactive 

changes made in response to the FSA resulted 

in an approximate savings of 29,653 bed-years 

to the Bureau of Prisons. 

How has the FSA impacted the 

federal prison population? 

Impact of FSA prospectively... Impact of retroactive application of FSA...

...For a total savings of 29,653 bed-years to the BOP.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission Prison Impact Model 2011-2013 Datafiles, USSCFY11-USSCFY13; U.S. Sentencing Commission FSA Datafiles, Fair Sentencing Act, December 2014; 

U.S. Sentencing Commission Final Crack Retroactivity Data Report.

5,984 

Affected 

Prisoners

15,320

Prison Bed 

Years Saved

6,880 

Affected 

Prisoners

14,333

Prison Bed 

Years Saved

26 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
Estimates of the prevalence of active drug 

use in the United States are developed from 

surveys. One frequently cited survey is the 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(NSDUH), an annual survey of civilian, 

noninstitutionalized people aged 12 years old 

and older, sponsored by the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration of 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services.69 The NSDUH began to measure the 

use of crack cocaine and powder cocaine 

separately in the late 1980s. As Figure16A 

illustrates, the FSA did not disrupt the trend of 

declining crack cocaine use that began in 2008. 

The NSDUH collects data through first, a 

random sample of households and noninstitutional group housing such as shelters, 

rooming houses, and dormitories throughout 

the United States, and then through face-toface interviews at the respondents’ places of 

residence.70 Due to limitations inherent in 

surveys, data from self-report surveys should 

be considered underestimates of actual drug 

use and interpreted cautiously. But, because 

the biases in the surveys appear to be 

reasonably constant over time, comparisons of 

reported use across years can be illuminating, 

even if the reported rate of use in any given 

year is an underestimate.

The rate of persons 18-25 years old who 

reported having used crack cocaine in the past 

year declined, from an estimated 1.0% 

(n=328,000) in 2005, to an estimated 0.3% 

(n=95,000) in 2013. The rate of persons 26 

years old and older who reported having used 

crack cocaine in the past year also declined, 

from 0.5% (n=1,000,000) in 2005, to 0.3% 

(n=526,000) in 2013. 

Relative to other illicit drugs reported in the 

survey, these numbers are small; in 2013, 

approximately 12,448,000 persons aged 18-25 

reported using any illicit drug in the past year, 

as compared to the 95,000 persons 18-25 who 

reported having used crack cocaine. Similarly, 

in 2013, 24,856,000 persons aged 26 or older 

reported using any illicit drug in the past year, 

as compared to the 526,000 persons 26 or 

older who reported having used crack cocaine. 

Has there been an increase in use of 

crack cocaine after the FSA?

Figure 16A.

Self-Reported Crack Cocaine Users 

in the Past Year by Age, 

2005-2013

SOURCE: 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(NSDUH), Tables 7.8A, 7.8B, 7.11A and 7.11B.

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix.

The FSA did not disrupt the 

ongoing decline in the number 

of people who report using 

crack cocaine in the last year.

Number

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 27

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction
28 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
Section Three 

Section Three of this report analyzes the impact of Section Three of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 related to the elimination of the mandatory 

minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 29
Prior to the FSA, crack cocaine was the only 

controlled substance with a mandatory 

minimum for simple possession.71 Section 3 of 

the FSA amended the statutory penalties for 

simple possession of controlled substances to 

eliminate the 5-year mandatory minimum for 

simple possession of more than 5 grams of 

crack cocaine. 

The number of crack cocaine simple 

possession offenders has always been small, 

and, following the enactment of the FSA, the 

generally declining trend continued. As Figure 

17A shows, there have been fewer than 50 

crack cocaine simple possession cases in every 

year since 2005, and in 2013 there were fewer 

than ten such cases.

Even within the small group of crack 

cocaine simple possession offenders, the 

mandatory minimum has applied relatively 

rarely and, as expected, the FSA’s elimination 

of the mandatory minimum has reduced that

number to zero. 

For the seven offenders sentenced in 2011 

and 2012 to the mandatory minimum penalty, 

it should be noted that each committed the 

offense before enactment of the FSA on August 

3, 2010, but was sentenced after that date. 

After their original sentencings, these seven 

offenders appealed their sentences on the 

grounds that, because they were sentenced 

after the FSA’s enactment, the FSA’s more 

lenient penalties should apply. In each case, 

the offender’s 5-year mandatory minimum 

sentence was vacated and the offender was resentenced under the post-FSA statutory and 

guideline scheme. 

Figure 17A.

Number of Simple Possession 

Crack Cocaine Offenders,

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

For additional data and source information, see 

Appendix.

The number of offenders 

subject to the mandatory 

minimum for simple possession 

of crack cocaine has always 

been small, and as expected, 

after the FSA is zero.

What has been the impact of the FSA’s 

removal of the mandatory minimum 

for simple possession of crack cocaine? 

30 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Elimination of Mandatory Minimum for Simple Possession
Section Four

Section Four of this report analyzes the impact of Section Four of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 related to increased penalties for major drug 

traffickers, specifically fine penalties. 

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 31
Section 4 of the FSA increased the amount 

of the fine that a court may impose on a drug 

trafficking offender. As with the statutory 

maximum for sentences of imprisonment, the 

maximum fine depends on both the drug 

quantity and whether the offense is the 

offender’s first conviction under the statute or 

the offender’s second or subsequent conviction 

under the statute. There are no minimum 

fines. 

Only a small percentage of drug trafficking 

offenders receive a fine of any amount, and the 

percentage of drug trafficking offenders 

receiving a fine has remained relatively stable 

after the FSA. 

Among offenders whose sentence did 

include a fine, the average fine stayed relatively 

stable after the FSA. 

Figure 18.

Fines Imposed for Drug Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

 Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Drug Trafficking 

Offenders Receiving 

Fines

11.0% 9.7% 9.9% 9.0% 9.1% 8.5% 8.0% 7.3% 7.8%

Average Fine Amount $7,972 $12,138 $8,039 $4,448 $8,061 $8,750 $13,673 $8,028 $9,978

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. For additional data and source information, see Appendix.

21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 960 Pre-FSA

Maximum Fine

Post-FSA

Maximum Fine

First offense

 5-yr min $2 million $5 million

 10-yr min $4 million $10 million

Second or subsequent offense

 5-yr min $4 million $8 million

 10-yr min $8 million $20 million

32 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Increased Fine Penalties for Major Drug Traffickers
Section Five

Section Five of this report analyzes the impact of Sections Five through Seven of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 related to enhancements for 

violence as well as increased emphasis on other aggravating and mitigating factors.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 33
Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the FSA directed the 

Commission to add new provisions to the 

guidelines that would increase or decrease a 

drug trafficker’s sentence under certain 

circumstances. These provisions were to apply 

to all drug traffickers, not just crack cocaine 

offenders; therefore, the analysis in this section 

is based on a study of all drug trafficking 

offenders since the FSA. These provisions have

applied rarely, although for most provisions 

the numbers have steadily increased. 

Section 5 of the FSA directed the 

Commission to add “an additional penalty 

increase of at least 2 offense levels if the 

offender used violence, made a credible threat 

to use violence, or directed the use of violence 

during a drug trafficking offense.” Pursuant to 

this directive, the drug trafficking guideline 

provides such an increase.72 

Section 6 of the FSA directed the 

Commission to add 2-level increases for a 

variety of conduct during a drug trafficking

offense. Pursuant to this directive, the

guidelines provide a 2-level increase for any

drug trafficker who bribes a law enforcement

official in connection with the offense.73 Also

pursuant to this directive, the guidelines

provide a separate 2-level increase if an 

offender maintained a premises (such as an

apartment or warehouse) for manufacturing or

distributing drugs.74

Section 6 also directed the Commission to 

provide another 2-level increase if a drug 

trafficker engaged in one of several other types

of conduct during the offense, but only if the 

offender was separately found to have played 

an aggravating role in the offense (“super 

aggravating role”). Under the guidelines, an 

offender plays an aggravating role by 

organizing, leading, managing or supervising 

other people involved in the offense.75 If one of 

these offenders used fear, impulse, friendship, 

and/or affection to involve another person 

who knew little about the enterprise and who 

received little or no compensation, the offender 

who involved that person would receive a 2-

level increase pursuant to this directive. 76 

Similarly, if an aggravating role offender 

distributed drugs to or involved in the offense 

a minor, a person 65 years or older, a pregnant 

person, or a person who was unusually 

vulnerable due to a physical or mental 

condition or otherwise particularly susceptible 

to criminal conduct, the 2-level increase would 

apply.77 Finally, if an aggravating role offender 

obstructed the investigation or prosecution of 

the offense or committed the offense as part of 

a criminal livelihood, the 2-level increase 

would apply.78 

Application of Selected Aggravating Specific Offense Characteristics in Drug Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2011-2014

Fiscal Year

2011

Fiscal Year

2012

Fiscal Year

2013

Fiscal Year

2014

Total # of Cases 18,536 23,833 21,960 20,977

N % N % N % N % 

Violence 37 0.2% 98 0.4% 157 0.7% 141 0.7%

Bribery 1 0.0% 5 0.0% 13 0.1% 13 0.1%

Premises 145 0.8% 483 2.0% 814 3.7% 919 4.4%

Super AggRole 39 0.2% 106 0.4% 153 0.7% 159 0.8%

34 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Increased Emphasis on Certain Aggravating Factors
Section 7 of the FSA directed the 

Commission to decrease the guideline range 

for drug trafficking offenders who play a 

minimal role in the offense under certain 

circumstances. Under the guidelines, a 

minimal participant is among the least culpable 

and may not be aware of the overall enterprise 

or others’ involvement.79 

Pursuant to the directive, a minimal 

participant’s base offense level is “capped” at 

32; that is to say, if a minimal participant is 

accountable for a drug quantity that would 

result in a base offense level that is higher than 

32, the base offense level must be reduced to 

32.80 As Figure 19 reflects, the cap has 

operated to reduce a drug trafficking offender’s 

base offense level rarely, although the number 

has increased annually. 

Separately, pursuant to section 7, a minimal 

participant would receive a 2-level decrease in 

offense level if he or she had little knowledge of 

the drug trafficking scheme, was not to receive 

monetary compensation, and was motivated to 

participate by an intimate or familial 

relationship or by threats or fear when he or 

she would otherwise have been unlikely to 

commit a drug trafficking offense (“super 

mitigating role”).81 As Figure 19 reflects, this 

reduction has also applied rarely, although the 

number has generally increased. 

Application of Selected Mitigating Specific Offense Characteristics in Drug Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2011-2014

Fiscal Year

2011

Fiscal Year

2012

Fiscal Year

2013

Fiscal Year

2014

Total # of Cases 18,536 23,833 21,960 20,977

N % N % N % N % 

Minimal Role Cap 17 0.1% 29 0.1% 49 0.2% 68 0.3%

Super MitRole 32 0.2% 42 0.2% 41 0.2% 54 0.3%

Figure 19.

Application of SOCs in

Drug Trafficking Offenses,

Fiscal Years 2011-2014 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA 

Datafiles. For additional data and source 

information, see Appendix. 

The guideline increases and 

decreases added in response 

to Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the 

FSA have all applied rarely.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 35

Increased Emphasis on Certain Mitigating Factors
36 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 
Conclusion

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 37
For more than twenty years, the 

Commission has worked consistently with the 

legislative, executive, and judicial branches of 

government and other interested parties to 

ensure that cocaine sentencing policy 

promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform 

Act. During this time, the Commission 

consistently took the position that the disparity 

between crack cocaine and powder cocaine 

penalties significantly undermined those goals. 

Therefore, the Commission recommended that 

Congress reduce crack cocaine penalties so 

that the crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio 

was no more than 20-to-1, and that Congress 

repeal the mandatory minimum penalty for 

simple possession of crack cocaine. 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

recommendations, the FSA reduced the 

statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses 

to produce an 18-to-1 crack-to-powder drug 

quantity ratio and eliminated the mandatory 

minimum sentence for simple possession of 

crack cocaine.

The Commission did not find a substantial 

change in the seriousness of crack cocaine 

offenders after the FSA as measured by drug 

quantity, weapon involvement, function 

performed, role in the offense, safety valve 

application, or criminal history generally. The 

Commission did find an increase in crack 

cocaine offenders sentenced as Career 

Offenders, and found that most of this increase 

was concentrated among crack cocaine 

offenders with lower drug quantities. 

The Commission also observed that rates of 

cooperation with law enforcement did not 

change despite the changes in penalties, and 

that the guidelines regained their relationship 

to crack cocaine sentences. 

Studying the effect of these changes, the 

Commission finds that the FSA reduced the 

disparity between crack and powder cocaine 

sentences, reduced the federal prison 

population, and has resulted in fewer federal 

prosecutions for crack cocaine. All this 

occurred while crack cocaine use continued to 

decline.

38 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Conclusion
Endnotes

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 39
1 Title II, Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 

1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473 (1984).

2 United States Sentencing Commission 

[hereinafter USSC or Commission], 2007 

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: COCAINE AND FEDERAL 

SENTENCING POLICY (May 2007) [hereinafter 

2007 Commission Report]; USSC, 2002 REPORT 

TO THE CONGRESS: COCAINE AND FEDERAL 

SENTENCING POLICY (May 2002) [hereinafter 

2002 Commission Report]; USSC, 1997 SPECIAL 

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: COCAINE AND FEDERAL 

SENTENCING POLICY (AS DIRECTED BY SECTION 2 OF 

PUB. L. NO. 104–38) (April 1997) [hereinafter 

1997 Commission Report]; USSC, 1995 SPECIAL 

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: COCAINE AND FEDERAL 

SENTENCING POLICY (AS DIRECTED BY SECTION 

280006 OF PUB. L. NO. 103–322) (February 

1995) [hereinafter 1995 Commission Report].

3 USSC, 2007 Commission Report, at 8; USSC, 

2002 Commission Report, at 93-103; USSC, 

1997 Commission Report, at 9; USSC, 1995 

Commission Report, at 195-98.

4 USSC, 2007 Commission Report, at 8.

5 USSG, App. C, amend. 706 (effective Nov. 1, 

2007).

6 Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–

220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010), at sections

2-3.

7 Id. at sections 5-7.

8 Id. at section 10.

9 Although the early reports implicated crack 

cocaine, witness testimony a year later 

revealed that the drug Bias used was powder 

cocaine. See USSC, 1995 Commission Report, 

at 122.

10 Pub. L. No. 99–570 (1986).

11 Id.

12 For a detailed history of mandatory 

minimums, see USSC, REPORT TO THE CONGRESS:

MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN THE FEDERAL 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (October 2011), at 

Chapter 2.

13 USSC, 2002 Commission report, at 10-11.

14 Pub. L. No. 100–690 (1988).

15 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (Sept. 13, 

1994).

16 Id.

17 USSC, 1995 Commission Report.

18 Id. at 195-98.

19 60 Fed. Reg. 25074 (May 10, 1995) (listing 

the proposed amendment).

20 Pub. L. No. 104-38 (Oct. 30, 1995).

21 USSC, 1997 Commission Report, at 9.

22 USSC, 2002 Commission Report.

23 Id. at 93-103.

24 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

25 United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85 

(2007); Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 

(2009).

26 Spears, 555 U.S. at 265-66.

27 USSG, App. C, amend. 706 (effective Nov. 1, 

2007), as amended by amend. 711 (effective 

Nov. 1, 2007); Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 

261 (2009).

28 Id.

29 USSG, App. C, amend. 713 (effective March 3, 

2008). Under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), when the 

Commission reduces a guideline range, it is 

directed to specify whether, and in what 

circumstances, the reduction should apply to 

offenders who had been sentenced under the 

previous, higher version of the guideline.

30 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General John 

Ashcroft, Memorandum: Department Policy 

Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, 

Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing 

(September 22, 2003).

40 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Endnotes
31 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General Eric 

Holder, Memorandum: Department Policy on 

Charging and Sentencing (May 19, 2010).

32 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General Eric 

Holder, Memorandum: Department Policy on 

Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and 

Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases 

(August 12, 2013).

33 Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–

220 (Aug. 3, 2010).

34 Id.

35 USSG, App. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 

2011) (implementing as permanent the 

temporary, emergency amendment (USSG, 

App. C, amend. 748 (effective Nov. 1, 2010)) 

that implemented the FSA); USSG, App. C, 

Amend. 759 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). 

36 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General Eric 

Holder, Memorandum: Application of the 

Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentencing 

Laws for Crack Cocaine Offenses Amended by 

the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (July 15, 2011).

37 Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335 

(2013).

38 USSG, App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 

2014) (reducing drug trafficking offense 

penalties across all drug types); USSG, App. 

C., Amend. 788 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) 

(making the 2-level reduction for all drug 

types retroactive with the proviso that no 

offender may be released before November 1, 

2015). 

39 Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–

220 (Aug. 3, 2010).

40 Id.

41 USSG, App. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 

2011) (implementing as permanent the

temporary, emergency amendment (USSG, 

App. C, amend 748 (effective Nov. 1, 2010)) 

that implemented the FSA).

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 USSC, Recidivism Among Offenders 

Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions 

(May 2014), available at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/r

esearch-and-publications/research-projectsandsurveys/miscellaneous/20140527_Recidivism_

2007_Crack_Cocaine_Amendment.pdf.

45 USSG, App. C, amend. 706 (effective Nov. 1, 

2007), as amended by amend. 711 (effective 

Nov. 1, 2007). 

46 United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85 

(2007); Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 

(2009).

47 See Appendix Figure 1B.

48 See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq. and 960 et 

seq.

49 USSG, §2D1.1(a)(5) (2014).

50 USSG, §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) (effective 

Nov. 1, 2014). The FSA directed the 

Commission to amend the guidelines to 

increase sentences for these offenders when 

certain other offense conduct is present; for 

further discussion, see Section Five of this 

report.

51 Id.

52 USSG, §3B1.1, Cmt. n. 4 (2014).

53 USSG, §3B1.1, Cmt. n. 4 (2014).

54 USSG, §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) (effective 

Nov. 1, 2014). The FSA directed the 

Commission to amend the guidelines to 

decrease sentences for these offenders when 

certain other offense conduct is present; for 

further discussion, see Section Five of this 

report.

55 Id.

56 USSG, §3B1.2, Cmt. n. 4 (2014).

57 USSG, §3B1.2, Cmt. n. 5 (2014).

58 USSG, §4A1.1 (Criminal History Category) 

(2014).

59 Id.

60 USSG, §1B1.1 (Application Instructions) 

(2014).

61 USSG, §4B1.1 (Career Offender) (2014).

62 Id.

Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 41

Endnotes
63 Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. 994(h) (directing that 

the guideline range for a career offender be at 

or near the statutory maximum).

64 USSG, §5C1.2 (Limitation on Applicability of 

Statutory Minimum Sentences in Certain 

Cases) (2014).

65 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(17) (2014).

66 FSA, at section 2 (entitled “Cocaine 

Sentencing Disparity Reduction).

67 USSG, App. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 

2011) (implementing as permanent the 

temporary, emergency amendment (USSG, 

App. C, amend. 748 (effective Nov. 1, 2010)) 

that implemented the FSA).

68 The methodology for this analysis is based 

on the Commission’s Prison Impact Model, 

which has been in use in some form since the 

guidelines were first developed. This model is 

used to estimate the impact of statutory and 

guideline amendments on federal offenders 

and to project the future impact those 

amendments will have on bed space in the 

BOP. For this analysis, those offenders who 

appear to have received a lower sentence as a 

result of the FSA were hypothetically 

“resentenced” with the computer program as if 

the statutory and guideline changes resulting 

from the FSA had not been In effect. A new 

release date for each offender also was 

calculated in order to determine when the 

offender would be eligible for release if he or 

she were to receive the full reduction in 

sentence provided by the amendment.

69 In 2002, the name of the survey was 

changed from the National Household Survey 

on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

70 Department of Health and Human Services, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 

Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug 

Use and Health Summary of Findings (NSDUH). 

Available at: 

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/fil

es/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSD

UHresults2013.pdf. 

71 Pub. L. No. 100–690 (1988).

72 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(2) (2014).

73 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(11) (2014).

74 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(12) (2014).

75 USSG, §3B1.1 (2014).

76 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(15) (2014).

77 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(15) (2014).

78 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(15) (2014).

79 USSG, §3B1.2 (2014).

80 USSG, §2D1.1(a)(5) (2014).

81 USSG, §2D1.1(b)(16) (2014).

42 Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

Endnotes
Report to the Congress: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 43

Appendix
Number

 0

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

 5,000

 5,500

 6,000

 6,500

 7,000

 7,500

Fiscal Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Crack-2 FSA

Figure 1A.

Number of Powder Cocaine and Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 

2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of 

powder or crack cocaine were included in this analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Fiscal Years 1992-2014 

Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine

Appendix A-1
Figure 1B.

Number of Drug Trafficking Offenders by Primary Drug Type

Fiscal Years 1992-2014

Fiscal Year Powder Cocaine Crack Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Methamphetamine Other Drug

1992 5,874 2,124 1,040 3,391 663 493

1993 5,351 3,194 1,400 3,963 725 529

1994 4,616 3,351 1,308 4,080 877 507

1995 3,900 3,506 1,192 3,418 1,025 267

1996 4,020 4,301 1,532 3,715 1,471 395

1997 4,311 4,328 1,589 4,699 1,804 456

1998 4,407 4,523 1,607 5,634 2,153 357

1999 4,595 4,816 1,611 6,441 2,675 500

2000 4,960 4,661 1,647 6,801 3,063 483

2001 4,891 4,599 1,590 7,440 3,177 670

2002 5,112 4,560 1,535 6,715 3,634 1,141

2003 5,426 5,022 1,589 5,594 4,130 1,299

2004 4,939 4,482 1,544 5,675 4,321 897

2005 5,174 4,965 1,526 5,604 4,521 929

2006 5,495 5,337 1,451 5,903 5,071 833

2007 5,949 5,230 1,278 5,847 4,812 834

2008 5,664 5,818 1,401 6,056 4,127 1,014

2009 5,782 5,473 1,551 5,904 3,947 1,193

2010 5,539 4,730 1,554 6,081 4,137 1,401

2011 5,895 4,229 1,765 6,762 4,423 1,476

2012 5,950 3,409 2,135 6,792 4,756 1,521

2013 5,358 2,912 2,168 4,768 5,333 1,676

2014 4,795 2,366 2,347 3,822 6,043 1,723

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing

Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (NarcoTerrorism) were included in this analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-2 
AVERAGE AGE

GUILTY PLEA

RACE/ETHNICITY

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

GENDER

Male

Female

CITIZENSHIP

U.S. Citizen

Non-U.S. Citizen

97.3 97.8

2.7 2.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 

2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug 

type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders missing information on a given analysis were excluded from that analysis. 

1.1 1.5

91.6 90.2

8.4 9.8

7.3 6.5

78.7 83.4

13.0 8.6

32 34

% %

95.2 95.8

FY10 FY14

Figure 2.

Selected Characteristics of Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2014

Crack Cocaine

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-3
Fiscal Year 2010

Fiscal Year 2014

Figure 3A.

Districts with Crack Cocaine as the Primary Drug Type 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2014

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) were 

included in this analysis. Ties were assigned to a single primary drug type based on the following prioritization: Crack Cocaine, Powder Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Heroin, 

Marijuana, Other.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-4 
Figure 3B.

Districts with Crack Cocaine as the Primary Drug Type

Fiscal Year 2010

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing 

Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) 

were included in this analysis. Ties were assigned to a single primary drug type based on the following prioritization: Crack Cocaine, Powder Cocaine, Methamphetamine, 

Heroin, Marijuana, Other. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Fiscal

Year District

Number

of

Crack

Offenders

Total

Number

of

Drug

Offenders Percent

2010 Vermont 23 56 41.1

2010 Illinois, Southern 60 142 42.3

2010 North Carolina, Western 93 210 44.3

2010 Pennsylvania, Middle 82 184 44.6

2010 Wisconsin, Western 37 83 44.6

2010 North Carolina, Middle 86 176 48.9

2010 South Carolina 243 494 49.2

2010 Louisiana, Eastern 63 127 49.6

2010 Georgia, Middle 51 102 50.0

2010 North Carolina, Eastern 144 279 51.6

2010 Pennsylvania, Western 96 185 51.9

2010 Mississippi, Northern 28 53 52.8

2010 West Virginia, Southern 59 111 53.2

2010 Louisiana, Middle 23 43 53.5

2010 West Virginia, Northern 72 130 55.4

2010 Illinois, Central 98 175 56.0

2010 Puerto Rico 275 483 56.9

Fiscal

Year District

Number 

of

Crack

Offenders

Total

Number

of

Drug

Offenders Percent

2010 Kentucky, Western 42 176 23.9

2010 Michigan, Eastern 56 226 24.8

2010 Virginia, Western 55 204 27.0

2010 Florida, Northern 37 136 27.2

2010 Tennessee, Western 61 219 27.9

2010 Alabama, Northern 31 108 28.7

2010 New York, Western 67 221 30.3

2010 Wisconsin, Eastern 69 213 32.4

2010 Missouri, Eastern 101 311 32.5

2010 New Hampshire 30 92 32.6

2010 Pennsylvania, Eastern 102 311 32.8

2010 Indiana, Northern 53 161 32.9

2010 Michigan, Western 49 141 34.8

2010 Virginia, Eastern 161 426 37.8

2010 Mississippi, Southern 34 90 37.8

2010 Georgia, Southern 84 222 37.8

2010 Massachusetts 68 175 38.9

2010 Louisiana, Western 53 134 39.6

2010 Alaska 22 55 40.0

Appendix A-5
Figure 3C.

Districts with Crack Cocaine as the Primary Drug Type

Fiscal Year 2014 

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing 

Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) 

were included in this analysis. Ties were assigned to a single primary drug type based on the following prioritization: Crack Cocaine, Powder Cocaine, Methamphetamine, 

Heroin, Marijuana, Other. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Fiscal

Year District

Number

of

Crack

Offenders

Total

Number

of

Drug

Offenders Percent

2014 Massachusetts 35 151 23.2

2014 New York, Southern 173 583 29.7

2014 West Virginia, Northern 56 166 33.7

2014 North Carolina, Eastern 81 231 35.1

2014 Louisiana, Eastern 41 115 35.7

2014 Alabama, Middle 16 43 37.2

2014 Vermont 44 113 38.9

2014 Georgia, Middle 59 147 40.1

2014 Mississippi, Northern 33 77 42.9

Appendix A-6 
Figure 4A.

Median Drug Weight in Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

56.7

50.2

52.8 51.0

55.0

60.6

69.8

78.7

70.0

Weight (grams)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders with missing information on the exact weight of crack cocaine involved in the offense (including 

offenders with a range of weights) were excluded from the drug weight analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-7
Figure 4B.

Median Drug Weight in Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Total

Number

of

Offenders

Number

of

Offenders

Missing

Weight

Number

of

Offenders

in

Weight

Analysis

Median

Crack

Weight

(in

grams)

2005 4,965 1,114 3,851 56.7

2006 5,337 945 4,392 50.2

2007 5,230 882 4,348 52.8

2008 5,818 1,117 4,701 51.0

2009 5,473 907 4,566 55.0

2010 4,730 919 3,811 60.6

2011 4,229 684 3,545 69.8

2012 3,409 643 2,766 78.7

2013 2,912 678 2,234 70.0

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders with missing information on the exact weight of crack cocaine involved in the offense (including 

offenders with a range of weights) were excluded from the drug weight analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-8 
Figure 5A.

Median Base Offense Level in Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

32 32 32

30 30 30

26 26 26

BOL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 

(Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 

2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Base Offense Level values reflect the BOL from the Drug 

Quantity Table (DQT) at USSG §2D1.1 prior to the application of the mitigating role cap or any adjustments under other guideline provisions. Offenders with BOLs 

determined by guideline provisions without reference to the DQT (e.g., §2D1.1(a)(1), §2D1.2(a)(4)) and offenders missing information required to determine the BOL 

prior to the application of the mitigating role cap were excluded from the median base offense level computation. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-9
Figure 5B.

Median Base Offense Level in Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Total

Number

of

Offenders

Number

of

Offenders

Missing

Uncapped

BOL

Number

of

Offenders

in

BOL

Analysis

Median

BOL

2005 4,965 46 4,919 32

2006 5,337 40 5,297 32

2007 5,230 14 5,216 32

2008 5,818 20 5,798 30

2009 5,473 4 5,469 30

2010 4,730 4 4,726 30

2011 4,229 6 4,223 26

2012 3,409 10 3,399 26

2013 2,912 2 2,910 26

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 

(Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 

2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Base Offense Level values reflect the BOL from the Drug 

Quantity Table (DQT) at USSG §2D1.1 prior to the application of the mitigating role cap or any adjustments under other guideline provisions. Offenders with BOLs 

determined by guideline provisions without reference to the DQT (e.g., §2D1.1(a)(1), §2D1.2(a)(4)) and offenders missing information required to determine the BOL 

prior to the application of the mitigating role cap were excluded from the median base offense level computation. 

Appendix A-10 
Figure 6A.

Most Serious Function of Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Select Fiscal Year Samples

2000 2005 2009 2013

4.9 6.8

4.1 3.6

0.0 1.6

6.6

9.6

12.7

22.7

27.9 26.5

4.9

2.0 1.2 1.3

64.5

55.4

47.0 47.6

13.0 11.6 13.2 11.4

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

HLS_Org/Lead Manufacturer Wholesaler Mgr/Sup SLD Low Level

For the Fiscal Year 2000, 2009, and 2013 Samples, only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 

(Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human 

Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. For the Fiscal Year 2005 Sample, only offenders sentenced under 

USSG §2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in the analysis. Cases missing information on most serious offender function were 

excluded from the analysis. The ‘Low Level Functions’ category includes offenders classified as: financier/money launderer, pilot/captain, bodyguard/strongman/debt collector, 

chemist/cook/chemical supplier, broker/go-between, courier, mule, renter/storer, money runner, off loader/loader, gopher/lookout/deckhand/employee, enabler, user only or “other” 

function. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-11
Most Serious Fiscal Most Serious Fiscal

Offender Function Year N Percent Offender Function Year N Percent

Importer/High-Level Supplier 2000 4 0.4 Manager 2000 27 2.9

2005 21 1.8 2005 17 1.5

2009 4 0.5 2009 6 0.7

2013 0 0.0 2013 7 1.0

Organizer/Leader 2000 41 4.5 2000 10 1.1

2005 58 5.0 2005 6 0.5

2009 30 3.6 2009 4 0.5

2013 26 3.6 2013 5 0.7

Manufacturer 2000 0 0.0 Chemist/Cook/Chemical 2000 25 2.7

2005 18 1.6 2005 28 2.4

2009 54 6.6 2009 11 1.3

2013 69 9.6 2013 5 0.7

Financier/Money Launderer 2000 1 0.1 Supervisor 2000 18 2.0

2005 0 0.0 2005 6 0.5

2009 1 0.1 2009 4 0.5

2013 1 0.1 2013 2 0.3

Pilot/Captain 2000 0 n/a Street Level Dealer 2000 592 64.5

2005 0 n/a 2005 643 55.4

2009 0 n/a 2009 387 47.0

2013 0 n/a 2013 343 47.6

Wholesaler 2000 117 12.7 Broker/Go-Between 2000 23 2.5

2005 263 22.7 2005 29 2.5

2009 230 27.9 2009 26 3.2

2013 191 26.5 2013 27 3.8

Figure 6B.

Most Serious Function of Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders 

Select Fiscal Year Samples

Bodyguard/Strongman/ 

Debt Collector

Appendix A-12 
Most Serious Fiscal Most Serious Fiscal

Offender Function Year N Percent Offender Function Year N Percent

Courier 2000 20 2.2 Enabler 2000 5 0.5

2005 15 1.3 2005 4 0.3

2009 21 2.5 2009 4 0.5

2013 7 1.0 2013 1 0.1

Mule 2000 3 0.3 User Only 2000 2 0.2

2005 1 0.1 2005 8 0.7

2009 2 0.2 2009 1 0.1

2013 0 0.0 2013 0 0.0

Renter/Storer 2000 8 0.9 Other 2000 0 0.0

2005 7 0.6 2005 0 0.0

2009 12 1.5 2009 2 0.2

2013 9 1.3 2013 2 0.3

Money Runner 2000 6 0.7

2005 7 0.6

2009 1 0.1

2013 0 0.0

Off Loader/Loader 2000 0 0.0

2005 1 0.1

2009 0 0.0

2013 0 0.0

Gopher/Lookout/

Deckhand/Employee

2000 16 1.7

2005 28 2.4

2009 24 2.9

2013 25 3.5

Figure 6B. (continued)

Most Serious Function of Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Select Fiscal Year Samples

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

For the Fiscal Year 2000, 2009, and 2013 Samples, only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 

(Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human 

Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. For the Fiscal Year 2005 Sample, only offenders sentenced under 

USSG §2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in the analysis. Cases missing information on most serious offender function were 

excluded from the analysis. The ‘Low Level Functions’ category includes offenders classified as: financier/money launderer, pilot/captain, bodyguard/strongman/debt collector, 

chemist/cook/chemical supplier, broker/go-between, courier, mule, renter/storer, money runner, off loader/loader, gopher/lookout/deckhand/employee, enabler, user only or “other” 

function. The sum of the individual function categories may not equal the percentages reported on Figure 6A due to rounding.

Appendix A-13
Figure 6C.

Drug Offender Function Codes 

Special Coding Project, Select Fiscal Year Samples 

The function codes are listed in descending order from most serious to least serious.

1 = Importer/High Level Supplier

(Imports or otherwise supplies large quantities of drugs (1 kilogram or more); is near the top of the distribution chain; 

has ownership interest in drugs (not merely transporting drugs for another individual); usually supplies drugs to other 

drug distributors and generally does not deal in retail amounts; may employ no or very few subordinates.) 

2 = Organizer/Leader

(Organizes, leads, directs, or otherwise runs a drug distribution organization; has the largest share of the profits and the 

most decision-making authority.) 

3 = Grower/Manufacturer 

(Grows, cultivates, or manufactures a controlled substance, and is the principal owner of the drugs.) 

4 = Financier/Money Launderer 

(Provides money for purchase, importation, manufacture, cultivation, transportation, or distribution of drugs; 

launders proceeds of drugs sales or purchases. Not an individual who merely transports money for the organization.) 

5 = Aircraft Pilot/Vessel Captain

(Pilots vessel or aircraft; requires special skill; does not include offender who is only participant directing a small boat (e.g.,

a go-fast boat) onto which drugs had been loaded from a “mother ship” (such person is a courier).) 

6 = Wholesaler

(Sells more than retail/user-level quantities in a single transaction; sells at least 1 ounce (28 grams) but less than 1 kilogram 

at one time, possesses or buys at least 2 ounces (56 grams) at one time, sells any amount to another dealer.) 

7 = Manager

(Serves as a lieutenant to assist one of the above; manages all or a significant portion of a drug manufacturing, 

importation, or distribution operation; takes instructions from one of the above and conveys to subordinates; supervises 

directly at least one other co-participant in an organization of at least five co-participants.) 

Appendix A-14 
8 = Bodyguard/Strongman/Debt collector

(Provides physical and personal security for another co-participant in the offense; collects debts owed, or 

punishes recalcitrant persons.) 

9 = Chemists/Cooks/Chemical Supplier 

(Produces LSD, methamphetamine, crack or other illegal drugs, but does not qualify as a Grower/Manufacturer because he/

she is not the principal owner of the drugs. Chemical supplier does not handle drugs themselves but engages in the 

unlawful diversion, sale, or furnishing of listed chemicals or equipment used in the synthesis or manufacturing of 

controlled substances.) 

10 = Supervisor

(Supervises at least one other co-participant, however, has limited authority and does not qualify as a Manager.) 

11 = Street Level Dealer

(Distributes retail quantities directly to the user; sells less than 1 ounce (28 grams) quantities to any user(s); if any amount is 

sold to another dealer use the wholesaler function.). 

12 = Broker/Steerer/Go Between

(Arranges for two parties to buy/sell drugs, or directs potential buyer to a potential seller.)

13 = Courier

(Transports or carries drugs with the assistance of a vehicle or other equipment. Includes situations where the offender, 

who is otherwise considered to be a crew member, is the only participant directing a vessel onto which drugs had been 

loaded from a “mother-ship.”) 

14 = Mule 

(Transports or carries drugs internally or on their person, often by airplane, or by walking across a border. Also, includes an 

offender who only transports or carries drugs in baggage, souvenirs, clothing, otherwise.) 

15 = Renter/Storer

(Provides (for profit/compensation) own residence, structures (barns, storage bins, buildings), land, or equipment for use to 

further the offense. This offender is distinguished from the enabler because he is paid (in some way) for his services.) 

Appendix A-15

Figure 6C. (continued)

Drug Offender Function Codes 

Special Coding Project, Select Fiscal Year Samples 
16 = Money Runner 

(Transports/carries money and/or drugs to and from the street-level dealer.)

17 = Off Loader/Loader

(Performs the physical labor required to put large quantities of drugs into storage, hiding, or onto some mode of 

transportation.) 

18 = Gopher/Lookout/Deckhand/Worker/Employee 

(Performs very limited, low-level function in the offense (whether or not ongoing); includes running errands, answering the 

telephone, receiving packages, packaging the drugs, manual labor, acting as a lookout to provide early warnings during 

meetings, exchanges, or off-loading, or acting as a deckhand/crew member on vessel or aircraft used to transport large 

quantities of drugs.) 

19 = Enabler (Passive)

(Plays no more than passive role in the offense, knowingly permitting certain unlawful criminal activity to take place 

without affirmatively acting in any way to further such activity; may be coerced or unduly influenced to play such a function 

(e.g. a parent or grandparent threatened with displacement from a home unless they permit the activity to take place), or may 

do so as a “favor” (without compensation).) 

20 = User Only

(Possesses small amount of drugs apparently for personal use only; no apparent function in any conspiratorial criminal 

activity.) 

77 = Other (specify)

(Use this code if none of the codes above adequately describe the function of the offender. Provide a short description 

detailing the activities, responsibilities, or function of the offender.)

Example: The police use an undercover agent to arrest offenders for participating in a larger conspiracy of planning to rob an individual who they 

believe is a high level drug importer. The offenders are all apprehended in the midst of approaching the house and there is no mention as to what 

they plan to do with the drugs once they stole them. There is no explanation as to how the police zeroed in on these defendants to begin with. These 

offenders could be coded as ‘Other’ with an explanation of ‘Drug Thief’ since they do not fit any other function definition.) 

99 = Missing/Indeterminable

Appendix A-16 

Figure 6C. (continued)

Drug Offender Function Codes 

Special Coding Project, Select Fiscal Year Samples 
Figure 7A.

Rate of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and §2D1.1 Weapon SOC for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

29.2 27.2

29.9

27.5 28.8 27.7 25.9 26.8 28.6

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and/or the application of the 

weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). Offenders sentenced under guideline provisions without reference to USSG §2D1.1 and those with invalid values of 

USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) are missing information on the application of the weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-17
Figure 7B.

Rate of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and §2D1.1 Weapon SOC for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 1,427 29.2

2006 1,443 27.2

2007 1,562 29.9

2008 1,594 27.5

2009 1,576 28.8

2010 1,308 27.7

2011 1,094 25.9

2012 914 26.8

2013 833 28.6

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and/or the application of the 

weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). Offenders sentenced under guideline provisions without reference to USSG §2D1.1 and those with invalid values of 

USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) are missing information on the application of the weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-18 
Figure 7C.

Rate of USSG §2D1.1 Weapon SOC Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

18.4 16.3

19.4 18.0 19.7 18.7 18.1 18.8 19.5

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders sentenced under guideline provisions without reference to USSG §2D1.1 and those with invalid 

values of USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) are missing information on the application of the weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-19
Figure 7D.

Rate of USSG §2D1.1 Weapon SOC Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 897 18.4

2006 865 16.3

2007 1,013 19.4

2008 1,042 18.0

2009 1,080 19.7

2010 883 18.7

2011 764 18.1

2012 641 18.8

2013 568 19.5

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders sentenced under guideline provisions without reference to USSG §2D1.1 and those with invalid 

values of USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) are missing information on the application of the weapon enhancement at USSG §2D1.1(b)(1). 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-20 
Figure 7E.

Rate of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

10.8 11.0 10.7 9.6 9.1 9.1 8.0 8.3 9.2

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

Appendix A-21
Figure 7F.

Rate of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 537 10.8

2006 588 11.0

2007 557 10.7

2008 558 9.6

2009 499 9.1

2010 431 9.1

2011 339 8.0

2012 282 8.3

2013 269 9.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

Appendix A-22 
Figure 8A.

Rate of Aggravating Role Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

5.6 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.6 5.4 6.0 6.9

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with any positive value under USSG §3B1.1. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-23
Figure 8B.

Rate of Aggravating Role Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 277 5.6

2006 241 4.5

2007 250 4.8

2008 272 4.7

2009 276 5.0

2010 266 5.6

2011 228 5.4

2012 206 6.0

2013 202 6.9 

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with any positive value under USSG §3B1.1. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-24 
Figure 9A.

Rate of Mitigating Role Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

6.6 6.7 6.0 5.8 5.7 4.4 3.9 5.2 4.5

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 

(Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 

2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with any negative value under 

USSG §3B1.2. In addition, offenders sentenced under USSG §2D1.8(a)(2) are included as receiving mitigating role. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-25
Figure 9B.

Rate of Mitigating Role Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 329 6.6

2006 355 6.7

2007 313 6.0

2008 339 5.8

2009 311 5.7

2010 207 4.4

2011 164 3.9

2012 176 5.2

2013 130 4.5

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 

(Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 

2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis includes offenders with any negative value under 

USSG §3B1.2. In addition, offenders sentenced under USSG §2D1.8(a)(2) are included as receiving mitigating role. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-26 
Figure 10A.

Trend in Criminal History Category for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V Category VI

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

22.5

12.6

20.7

12.7

8.1

23.4

22.3

12.4

20.4

12.7

7.9

24.2

21.0

12.0

19.9

12.0

7.5

27.6

22.6

12.3

19.5

12.0

8.4

25.3

21.9

11.4

17.9

12.7

8.1

27.9

22.0

11.8

18.2

11.7

8.0

28.3

20.3

12.0

19.8

12.9

8.0

26.9

21.4

12.0

21.3

12.1

6.5

26.8

19.2

11.9

19.6

12.3

8.4

28.5

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-27
Figure 10B.

Trend in Criminal History Category for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Number

CHC I

Percent

CHC I

Number

CHC II

Percent

CHC II

Number

CHC

III

Percent

CHC

III

Number

CHC IV

Percent

CHC

IV

Number

CHC V

Percent

CHC V

Number

CHC VI

Percent

CHC

VI

2005 1,116 22.5 624 12.6 1,027 20.7 632 12.7 404 8.1 1,161 23.4

2006 1,192 22.3 663 12.4 1,090 20.4 677 12.7 423 7.9 1,292 24.2

2007 1,099 21.0 625 12.0 1,041 19.9 630 12.0 394 7.5 1,441 27.6

2008 1,312 22.6 715 12.3 1,132 19.5 698 12.0 487 8.4 1,474 25.3

2009 1,200 21.9 625 11.4 982 17.9 697 12.7 442 8.1 1,527 27.9

2010 1,041 22.0 556 11.8 862 18.2 554 11.7 377 8.0 1,340 28.3

2011 858 20.3 507 12.0 839 19.8 547 12.9 339 8.0 1,139 26.9

2012 729 21.4 409 12.0 725 21.3 413 12.1 221 6.5 912 26.8

2013 559 19.2 346 11.9 572 19.6 358 12.3 246 8.4 831 28.5

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-28 
Figure 11A.

Rate of Career Offender Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

14.9 15.0

17.9 16.7 17.7 19.4 18.5 18.8 20.2

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis reflects the overall rate of career offender application under USSG §4B1.1 regardless of whether or 

not the application of career offender impacted the Final Offense Level or Criminal History Category. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-29
Figure 11B.

Rate of Career Offender Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 739 14.9

2006 801 15.0

2007 936 17.9

2008 974 16.7

2009 967 17.7

2010 916 19.4

2011 782 18.5

2012 642 18.8

2013 589 20.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis reflects the overall rate of career offender application under USSG §4B1.1 regardless of whether or 

not the application of career offender impacted the Final Offense Level or Criminal History Category. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-30 
Figure 12A.

Career Offender Application by Base Offense Level for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Percent Fiscal Years 2005-2013

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

BOL 6-24 BOL 26-30 BOL 32-38

2

0

0

5

2

0

0

6

2

0

0

7

2

0

0

8

2

0

0

9

2

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

0

1

3

2

0

0

5

2

0

0

6

2

0

0

7

2

0

0

8

2

0

0

9

2

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

0

1

3

2

0

0

5

2

0

0

6

2

0

0

7

2

0

0

8

2

0

0

9

2

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

0

1

3

14.2 13.7

16.2 16.2 16.7

21.0 20.8 21.0

23.9

15.9 15.2

17.9 16.6 18.2 18.4 17.3 19.0 18.8

14.5 15.2

18.2 17.5 17.8 19.5 18.6

16.6

19.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Base Offense Level values reflect the BOL from the Drug Quantity Table (DQT) at USSG §2D1.1 prior to the 

application of the mitigating role cap or any adjustments under other guideline provisions. Offenders with BOLs determined by guideline provisions without reference to the 

DQT (e.g., §2D1.1(a)(1), §2D1.2(a)(4)) and offenders missing information required to determine the BOL prior to the application of the mitigating role cap were excluded from 

the analysis. The analysis reflects the overall rate of career offender application under USSG §4B1.1 regardless of whether or not the application of career offender impacted the 

Final Offense Level or Criminal History Category. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-31
Figure 12B.

Career Offender Application by Base Offense Level for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Number

BOL

6-24

Percent

BOL

6-24

Number

BOL

26-30

Percent

BOL

26-30

Number 

BOL

32-38

Percent

BOL

32-38

2005 63 14.2 281 15.9 392 14.5

2006 65 13.7 310 15.2 424 15.2

2007 63 16.2 357 17.9 515 18.2

2008 231 16.2 427 16.6 316 17.5

2009 244 16.7 438 18.2 284 17.8

2010 242 21.0 395 18.4 278 19.5

2011 232 20.8 358 17.3 192 18.6 

2012 169 21.0 318 19.0 153 16.6

2013 177 23.9 261 18.8 150 19.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Base Offense Level values reflect the BOL from the Drug Quantity Table (DQT) at USSG §2D1.1 prior to the 

application of the mitigating role cap or any adjustments under other guideline provisions. Offenders with BOLs determined by guideline provisions without reference to the 

DQT (e.g., §2D1.1(a)(1), §2D1.2(a)(4)) and offenders missing information required to determine the BOL prior to the application of the mitigating role cap were excluded from 

the analysis. The analysis reflects the overall rate of career offender application under USSG §4B1.1 regardless of whether or not the application of career offender impacted the 

Final Offense Level or Criminal History Category. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-32 
Figure 13A.

Rate of Safety Valve Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

13.7 14.2 13.3 14.2 12.3 11.3 11.6 10.9 10.0

Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis accounts for safety valve relief under both USSG §§5C1.2 and 2D1.1. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-33
Figure 13B.

Rate of Safety Valve Application for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year N %

2005 678 13.7

2006 754 14.2

2007 696 13.3

2008 827 14.2

2009 673 12.3

2010 534 11.3

2011 489 11.6

2012 372 10.9

2013 291 10.0

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. The analysis accounts for safety valve relief under both USSG §§5C1.2 and 2D1.1. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-34 
Months

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Crack-2 FSA

Figure 14A. 

Average Sentence Imposed for Crack Cocaine and Powder Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013 

Avg Sentence Imposed - Crack Avg Sentence Imposed - Powder

124 121

128

114 113

108

101

95 96

83 83 84

88

83 81 78 80 79

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of powder cocaine or crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders with sentences of probation or sentences exceeding 470 months (including life) 

were included in the average sentence computations as 0 months and 470 months, respectively. The analysis includes time of confinement as described in §5C1.1. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-35
Months

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Crack-2 FSA

Figure 14B.

Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Avg Guideline Minimum - Crack Avg Sentence Imposed - Crack

151

146

153

135

141 142

130

123 124 125

121

128

114 113

108

101

95 96

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders with sentences of probation or sentences exceeding 470 months (including life) were included in 

the average sentence computations as 0 months and 470 months, respectively. The analysis includes time of confinement as described in §5C1.1. Guideline minimums account 

for statutory mandatory minimum penalties. Guideline minimums exceeding 470 months (including life) were included in the average guideline minimum computation as 470 

months. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-36 
Figure 14C.

Average Guideline Minimum, Average Sentence Imposed, and Their Percent Difference

for Powder Cocaine and Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Powder Cocaine

Average

GuidelineMinimum

(in months)

Powder Cocaine

Average

Sentence Imposed

(in months)

Powder Cocaine

Percent Difference

Crack Cocaine

Average

GuidelineMinimum

(in months)

Crack Cocaine

Average

Sentence Imposed

(in months)

Crack Cocaine

Percent Difference

2005 100 83 -17.0 151 124 -17.9

2006 101 83 -17.8 146 121 -17.1

2007 102 84 -17.6 153 128 -16.3

2008 108 88 -18.5 135 114 -15.6

2009 105 83 -21.0 141 113 -19.9

2010 104 81 -22.1 142 108 -23.9

2011 98 78 -20.4 130 101 -22.3

2012 104 80 -23.1 123 95 -22.8

2013 102 79 -22.5 125 96 -23.2

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of powder cocaine or crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Offenders with sentences of probation or sentences exceeding 470 months (including life) 

were included in the average sentence computations as 0 months and 470 months, respectively. The analysis includes time of confinement as described in §5C1.1. Guideline 

minimums account for statutory mandatory minimum penalties. Guideline minimums exceeding 470 months (including life) were included in the average guideline minimum 

computation as 470 months. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-37
Percent

 0.0

 10.0

 20.0

 30.0

 40.0

 50.0

 60.0

 70.0

 80.0

 90.0

 100.0

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Crack-2 FSA

Figure 15A.

Position of Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Within Range Above Range

§5K1.1 Other Gov't Spons.

Non-Gov't Spons. Below Range

53.9

56.8 56.4 56.2

49.2

40.8

47.3

44.5

42.5

30.5

27.3 28.2

25.4 25.8 25.4 26.8 25.7 26.3

2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 3.4

5.9 4.0 6.1 7.1 12.6 13.1 12.6

15.5

20.6

26.9

20.2 22.3 22.4

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Other Government Sponsored includes offenders sentenced under USSG §5K3.1 (Early Disposition Program) 

and below range sentences otherwise sponsored by the government. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-38 
Figure 15B.

Position of Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range for Crack Cocaine Trafficking Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

Fiscal

Year

Within

Range

N

Within

Range

%

Above

Range

N

Above

Range

%

§5K1.1

N

§5K1.1

%

Other

Gov't

Sponsored

N

Other

Gov't

Sponsored

%

Non-Gov't

Sponsored

Below

Range

N

Non-Gov't

Sponsored

Below

Range

%

2005 2,664 53.9 22 0.4 1,509 30.5 131 2.6 621 12.6

2006 3,031 56.8 23 0.4 1,458 27.3 125 2.3 700 13.1

2007 2,950 56.4 24 0.5 1,473 28.2 126 2.4 657 12.6

2008 3,267 56.2 37 0.6 1,477 25.4 137 2.4 899 15.5

2009 2,692 49.2 54 1.0 1,414 25.8 186 3.4 1,127 20.6

2010 1,930 40.8 49 1.0 1,200 25.4 277 5.9 1,274 26.9

2011 2,000 47.3 70 1.7 1,135 26.8 170 4.0 854 20.2

2012 1,516 44.5 49 1.4 876 25.7 207 6.1 761 22.3

2013 1,239 42.5 45 1.5 767 26.3 208 7.1 653 22.4

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a 

primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in this analysis. Other Government Sponsored includes offenders sentenced under USSG §5K3.1 (Early Disposition Program) 

and below range sentences otherwise sponsored by the government. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-39
Figure 16A.

Self-Reported Crack Cocaine Users in the Past Year by Age 

2005-2013

The Commission created this table using select data from Tables 7.8A, 7.8B, 7.11A, and 7.11B in the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. 

SOURCE: Tables 7.8A, 7.8B, 7.11A, and 7.11B, SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002-2013. 

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

Aged 18-25 Aged 26 and Older

Appendix A-40 
Figure 16B.

Self-Reported Drug Use in the Past Year by Age of User

2005-2013 

Number in Thousands 

2005 

N 

2006 

N 

2007 

N 

2008 

N 

2009 

N 

2010 

N 

2011 

N 

Illicit Drugs1

Age 18-25 11,117 11,267 10,889 11,090 12,186 11,990 12,067 

Age 26 and older 18,883 19,565 20,163 19,801 21,099 22,174 21,485 

Crack Cocaine 

 Age 18-25 328 293 249 217 172 180 107 

 Age 26 and older 1,000 1,111 1,138 862 807 686 490 

Percentage % % % % % % % Illicit Drugs 

Age 18-25 34.2 34.4 33.3 33.7 36.3 35.2 35.2 Age 26 and older 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.3 10.9 11.4 10.8 

Crack Cocaine 

 Age 18-25 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 

 Age 26 and older 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 

The Commission created this table using select data from Tables 7.8A, 7.8B, 7.11A, and 7.11B in the Department of Health and Human Services, Subst

Services Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. 

1 Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonm

SOURCE: Tables 7.8A, 7.8B, 7.11A , and 7.11B, SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and He

Appendix

A-41
Figure 17A.

Number of Simple Possession Crack Cocaine Offenders

Fiscal Years 2005-2013

# with 60 Month Drug Mandatory Minimum Total # of Simple Possession Offenders

48

37

27

23

30

21 20

25

7

Number

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fiscal Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2

3

1

2

1 1

5

2

0

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application information under USSG §2D2.1 (Simple Possession) with a primary drug type of crack cocaine were included in

this analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

Appendix A-42 
Figure 18.

Fines Imposed for Drug Trafficking Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2005 –2013 

Only offenders with complete guideline application information sentenced under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal 

Enterprise), 2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life) or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) were included in 

this analysis. Offenders with missing fine information, a fine of $0, or with a fine imposed in an unspecified amount were excluded from the average fine computation. 

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles.

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

Drug Trafficking

Offenders Receiving Fines

2,504 11.0 2,340 9.7 2,376 9.9 2,153 9.0 2,177 9.1 1,988 8.5 1,966 8.0 1,800 7.3 1,721 7.8

Average Fine Amount $7,972 $9,978

FY12 FY13

$12,138 $8,039 $4,448 $8,061 $8,750 $13,673 $8,028

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Appendix A-43
Total # of Cases

N % N % N % N %

Minimal Role Cap 17 0.1 29 0.1 49 0.2 68 0.3

Violence 37 0.2 98 0.4 157 0.7 141 0.7

Bribery 1 0.0 5 0.0 13 0.1 13 0.1

Premises 145 0.8 483 2.0 814 3.7 919 4.4

Role + Aggravating Factors 39 0.2 106 0.4 153 0.7 159 0.8

Fear, Impulse, Friendship 3 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0

Involved Ind. < 18 years 7 0.0 22 0.1 28 0.1 22 0.1

Involved Ind. >= 65 years 2 0.0 3 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0

Involved Pregnant Ind. 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 5 0.0

Involved Vulnerable Ind. 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 5 0.0

Importation 7 0.0 39 0.2 51 0.2 49 0.2

Obstruction 5 0.0 8 0.0 21 0.1 12 0.1

Criminal Livelihood 14 0.1 25 0.1 38 0.2 54 0.3

Role + Mitigating Factors 32 0.2 42 0.2 41 0.2 54 0.3

Figure 19.

Application of Selected Specific Offense Characteristics in Drug Trafficking Offenses

Fiscal Years 2011 - 2014

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

23,833 21,960 20,977

Only offenders sentenced with complete guideline application under USSG §§2D1.1 (Drug Trafficking), 2D1.2 (Protected Locations), 2D1.5 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 

2D1.6 (Use of a Communication Facility), 2D1.8 (Rent/Manage Drug Establishment), 2D1.10 (Endangering Human Life), or 2D1.14 (Narco-Terrorism) with a Guidelines 

Manual effective November 1, 2010, or later were included in this analysis. Offenders sentenced under provisions of the specified guidelines without reference to USSG

§2D1.1 were excluded from this analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, FSA Datafiles. 

18,536

Appendix A-44