Alternative Sentencing in the 

Federal Criminal Justice System 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov

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 

 

Kenneth P. Cohen 

Staff Director 

Glenn R. Schmitt 

Director 

Office of Research and Data 

Louis Reedt 

Deputy Director 

Office of Research and Data 

May 2015 
Introduction 

In January 2009 the United States Sentencing Commission 

issued a report, Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal 

Justice System. The report analyzed data from the prior decade concerning the imposition of 

alternative sentences by federal courts.1 In particular, that report found “the proportion of 

federal offenders sentenced to alternatives . . . remained low and decreased slightly” during the 

prior decade.2

As a supplement to the 2009 publication, the Commission is releasing this new report, 

using data from 2005 through 2014, to examine more recent trends in the rates of alternative 

sentences using a methodology that expands that of the prior report. Notably, this new report 

updates the previous analysis to include federal sentencing data since the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s December 2007 decision in Gall v. United States,

3 which reinforced sentencing courts’ 

discretion to vary below the sentencing ranges recommended by the Guidelines Manual.4 

This current report examines how sentencing courts use their discretion to impose 

alternative sentences, specifically combinations of probation and confinement options that 

substitute for the full prison terms permitted by law. This analysis shows a continued 

decreasing trend in the imposition of alternative sentences and explores factors associated with 

the decrease. In examining these trends, this report demonstrates:

 Alternative sentences were imposed for a small proportion of federal offenders, in part, 

as a result of the large number of federal offenders who were ineligible for such 

sentences due to convictions under certain statutes or their status as deportable aliens. 

 During the past ten years, rates of alternative sentences declined among U.S. citizen 

federal offenders who were eligible for such sentences despite 1) a steady overall 

increase in sentences below the guideline range due to downward departures or 

variances and 2) overall consistency in offense severity and criminal history among 

those offenders. 

 In recent years, the decrease in rates of alternative sentences for eligible offenders, in 

part, is a reflection of the Commission's 2010 amendment that expanded Zones B and C 

of the Sentencing Table. The amendment added to Zones B and C offenders whose 

sentencing ranges previously were in Zones C and D, thereby increasing the proportion

of offenders eligible for alternatives. However, as to be expected, courts imposed 

alternatives for these more serious offenders less frequently than for offenders whose 

Alternative Sentencing in the 

Federal Criminal Justice System

Courtney R. Semisch, Ph.D. 

Senior Research Associate 

Office of Research and Data
United States Sentencing Commission 

2 

sentencing ranges otherwise were in Zones B and C. This has contributed to the 

decrease in the rate of alternative sentences for eligible offenders. 

 Alternative sentences were imposed at notably different rates for offenders in different 

race categories with White offenders receiving such sentences at higher rates than 

Black and Hispanic offenders. 

 During the past ten years, alternative sentences have been imposed at a consistently 

low rate among U.S. citizen offenders whose sentencing ranges were in Zone D of the 

Sentencing Table. 

Background 

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the “Act”)5 envisioned sentences other than 

imprisonment as “generally appropriate[] . . . in cases in which the defendant is a first offender 

who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense.”6 The Act 

established probation as a stand-alone sentencing option, rather than as an instrument used in 

suspending prison sentences.7 Alternative sentencing options were further expanded by the 

Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act of 1988,8 which authorized the use of home detention and 

electronic monitoring for offenders sentenced to probation and those serving terms of 

supervised release.9 The Commission incorporated these policies into the federal sentencing 

guidelines along with other probation and intermediate confinement options for less serious and 

first-time offenders.10

Sentencing Table and Zones 

 The guidelines’ Sentencing Table (see Guidelines Manual, Chapter Five, Part A) 

provides sentencing ranges based on an offender’s final offense level and Criminal History 

Category.11 The table is subdivided into four zones (A, B, C, and D) that determine confinement 

options for each sentencing range.12 The four options, in increasing order of severity, are: 

 Probation-only (zero months of confinement); 

 Probation that includes a condition or combination of conditions that substitute 

intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention for imprisonment; 

 Imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release with a condition or combination 

of conditions that substitute community confinement or home detention (split sentence); 

and 

 Prison-only. 

 Sentencing ranges in Zone A are from zero to six months of confinement. At the 

sentencing court’s discretion, the zero-to-six month range may consist of probation-only, 

probation with a confinement condition, a split sentence, or imprisonment. 

 Sentencing ranges in Zone B include confinement terms ranging from one to 15 months. 

The guidelines advise that Zone B allows probation terms to be substituted for imprisonment, 

provided that the probation term includes confinement conditions (community confinement, 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

3 

intermittent confinement, or home detention).13 For offenders whose sentencing ranges fall into 

Zone B and who are sentenced to prison, the guidelines provide that a minimum of one month 

of the total term imposed must be imprisonment. The remainder of the sentence also may be 

imprisonment or a substitution of probation that includes community confinement or home 

detention. Any sentence for offenders whose sentencing ranges fall into Zone B and who are 

sentenced to probation (without any term of confinement) necessarily constitutes either a 

downward departure or variance.14

 Sentencing ranges in Zone C of the Sentencing Table include confinement terms 

ranging from ten to 18 months. The guidelines advise that Zone C sentences must include a 

term of imprisonment equivalent to at least half of the minimum of the applicable guideline 

range. The remaining half of the term requires supervised release with a condition of 

community confinement or home detention.15 Alternatively, the court has the option of imposing 

an imprisonment term for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zone C. Any sentence for 

offenders whose sentencing ranges fall into Zone C and are sentenced to probation (whether or 

not with a condition of confinement) necessarily constitutes a downward departure or variance. 

 Finally, sentencing 

ranges in Zone D of the 

Sentencing Table require a term 

of imprisonment ranging from 15 

months to life. Any sentence of 

probation or any split sentence 

as a substitute for imprisonment 

for offenders whose sentencing 

ranges are in Zone D necessarily 

constitutes a downward 

departure or variance. 

Expansion of Zones B and C

 In November 2010, the 

Commission provided a greater 

range of sentencing options to 

courts with respect to certain 

offenders by expanding Zones B 

and C of the Sentencing Table.16 

Each of the two zones was 

expanded by one level. 

Specifically, Zone B was 

expanded to include offense 

level 11 on the Sentencing Table 

so that offenders with sentencing 

ranges of 8-14 months and 9-15 

months whose sentencing 

ranges previously were in Zone 

C are now in Zone B. Similarly, 

Zone C was expanded to include 

offense level 13 so that 

offenders with sentencing ranges 

of 12-18 months whose 
United States Sentencing Commission 

4 

sentencing ranges previously were in Zone D are now in Zone C. The darker shaded areas in 

each of Zones B and C on the Sentencing Table on page 3 of this report indicate the previously 

existing sentencing ranges for each zone. The lighter shaded areas in each of Zones B and C 

indicate the sentencing ranges added to each zone by the 2010 amendment. 

Statutory Limitations on Eligibility for Alternative Sentences

 Certain offenders are not eligible for 

alternative sentences. Federal statutes limit the use 

of probation for some federal offenders.17 

Specifically, a sentence of probation may not be 

imposed in the event: (1) the offense of conviction is 

a Class A or Class B felony,18 (2) the offense of 

conviction expressly precludes probation as a 

sentence (e.g., many federal drug trafficking offenses19), or (3) the defendant is sentenced at 

the same time to a sentence of imprisonment for the same or a different offense.20 The federal 

sentencing guidelines incorporate the statutory limitations on probation and also provide for 

sentences of probation if (1) the applicable guideline range is in Zone A of the Sentencing 

Table, or (2) the applicable guideline range is in Zone B of the Sentencing Table and the court 

imposes a condition or combination of conditions requiring intermittent confinement, community 

confinement, or home detention.21

 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, in its directives to the Commission, provides further 

guideline limitations on probation for specific offenders. The Act directs that the guidelines 

provide for substantial imprisonment terms for offenders with two or more prior felonies, 

offenses that comprise a pattern of criminal conduct, offenders who manage or supervise 

racketeering conspiracies, offenders who commit a crime of violence while under supervision, 

and drug offenses involving substantial quantities.22 

 The other type of alternative sentence used in the federal system, a split sentence, 

involves a relatively short term of imprisonment (typically six months or less) followed by some 

amount of custody in home detention or community confinement.23 Split sentences are 

available for some offenders who are not eligible for probation. Offenders sentenced to 

mandatory minimum prison terms, however, generally are not eligible for such split sentences in 

view of the length of such mandatory terms. 

 The restrictive effect of mandatory minimum 

convictions is reflected, in part, in the overall low 

rates of alternative sentences imposed for 

federal offenders. Figure 1 shows that, in 2014, 

13.0 percent of federal offenders were 

sentenced to some type of alternative sentence 

while the overwhelming majority, 87.0 percent 

were sentenced to imprisonment.24 Probationonly sentences were the most commonly 

imposed alternative sentence at 7.2 percent. 

Split sentences and probation with conditions of 

community confinement or home detention were 

imposed less often with rates of 3.0 percent and 

2.8 percent, respectively. This low rate of 

alternative sentences is, in part, attributable to 

In 2014, 13.0 percent of federal 

offenders were sentenced to some 

type of alternative. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

5 

the fact that nearly one-quarter (22.7%) of federal offenders have convictions under statutes 

that carry mandatory minimum sentences.25 

 The purpose of this report is to examine how courts use their discretion to impose 

alternative sentences. Because mandatory minimum sentences are a key limitation on courts’ 

discretion to impose alternatives, offenders who were subject to a statutory mandatory minimum 

penalty at the time of sentencing were excluded from the remaining analyses in this report. 

Citizenship Status Limitations on Eligibility for Alternative Sentences

 Although most federal offenders were not 

convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory 

minimum penalty, alternative sentences are 

imposed for only small proportion of federal 

offenders not convicted of such an offense. 

Overall, 17.5 percent of those offenders were 

sentenced to some type of alternative sentence in 

2014.26 This low rate primarily is due to the 

predominance of offenders whose sentencing 

ranges were in Zone D of the Sentencing Table, in 

which the guidelines provide for a term of 

imprisonment. 

 As shown in Figure 2, two-thirds (66.1%) of 

federal offenders sentenced in 2014 had 

sentencing ranges in Zone D of the Sentencing 

Table and were, absent a downward departure or 

variance, subject to imprisonment.27 The remaining one-third (33.9%) of offenders had 

sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C, the three sentencing zones allowing alternative 

sentences under the guidelines. As shown in the figure, nearly equal percentages of offenders 

were sentenced in Zones A (10.6%), B (12.3%), and C (11.0%) in 2014. 

 As shown in Figure 3, the majority 

of offenders were sentenced to 

imprisonment, regardless of zone.28 

Because the guidelines do not provide for 

alternative sentences for offenders 

whose sentencing ranges are in Zone D, 

the predominance of imprisonment for 

those offenders (91.7%) is expected. 

However, imprisonment sentences also 

predominated for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in the other three 

zones. In fact, imprisonment rates were 

somewhat similar for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zones A (68.2%), 

B (73.2%), and C (68.7%). Therefore, 

despite the increased eligibility for a 

variety of alternative sentences for 

offenders with sentencing ranges in Zones A through C, the majority were not sentenced 

according to those options. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

6 

 The low rate of alternative sentences for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in 

Zones A, B, and C is, in part, attributable to the large number of non-citizen offenders with 

sentencing ranges in those zones. Non-citizens, as a practical matter, are ineligible for most 

alternatives because of their status as deportable aliens (resulting in immigration detainers that 

prevent their release into the community). Aliens convicted of many types of federal offenses 

are subject to deportation from the United States as “aggravated felons.”29 Because of these 

immigration policies, rates of alternative sentences are substantially impacted by the proportion 

of non-citizens in the federal offender population. 

 As shown in Figure 4, non-citizen offenders predominated in the three zones for which 

the guidelines provide for alternative sentences. In 2014, non-citizens constituted the majority 

of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zones A (66.7%) and B (63.8%) and nearly half of 

offenders in Zone C (49.7%).30 In 2014 immigration-related offenses accounted for 87.6 percent 

of convictions for non-citizens with 

sentencing ranges in Zones A 

through C. In comparison, 

immigration-related offenses 

accounted for a slightly smaller 

proportion of convictions for noncitizens with sentencing ranges in 

Zone D (72.7%) due to the larger 

proportion of drug-related offenses 

in that zone. 

 Because non-citizens 

generally are precluded from 

receiving alternative sentences, 

those offenders were excluded from 

the remaining analyses in this report. 

Methodology 

 As discussed above, the zones on the Sentencing Table provide for different 

combinations of probation and confinement as alternatives to the full prison terms permitted by 

law. For purposes of this report, the term “alternative sentences” is defined to account for any 

of those combinations. However, because the sentencing guidelines provide for different 

sanctions based on the zone into which an offender’s sentencing range falls, alternative 

sentences are defined differently in this report for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in 

Zone A than for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zones B through D. 

 Under the guidelines, within range sentences for offenders whose sentencing ranges fall 

within Zone A can span from probation-only to a prison term of six months; however, a 

probation-only sentence satisfies the requirements of the sentencing guidelines for these 

offenders. In fact, the guidelines provide that “a sentence of imprisonment is not required” for 

Zone A sentences.31 Sentences that involve any amount of incarceration are in excess of the 

least restrictive sentence available, and so cannot be said to be an “alternative” to the sentence 

that would otherwise be imposed. In order to reflect this nuance of guideline sentencing 

options, the term “alternative sentences” for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone A is 

defined as any probation sentence (including those with conditions of community confinement or 

home detention). A split sentence (i.e., a sentence involving any amount of incarceration) is not 

considered an alternative sentence for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zone A.32 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

7 

 In contrast, probation-only sentences are not among the available sentencing ranges for 

offenders whose sentencing ranges fall in Zones B, C, or D of the Sentencing Table. For 

offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zones B and C, the guidelines provide that the 

minimum term may be satisfied by a “sentence of imprisonment” but further provide for 

combinations of probation or supervised release with different types of confinement that 

substitute for imprisonment also satisfy the requirements for those zones.33 Therefore, for 

purposes of this report, these specific substitutes for a sentence of imprisonment are considered 

alternative sentences for these offenders, as is any probation sentence imposed. 

 Within range sentences for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zone D are limited 

by the guidelines to sentences of imprisonment only. Therefore, any sentence other than 

prison-only sentence is considered an alternative sentence for these offenders. 

 The analysis that follows includes U.S. citizen offenders without convictions carrying 

mandatory minimum sentences whose sentences were either within or below the guideline 

range. The inclusion of offenders sentenced below the guideline range is a key methodological 

change from the 2009 report, which was limited to offenders sentenced within the guideline 

range. This expanded analysis provides a more comprehensive examination of sentencing 

courts’ exercise of discretion by examining the imposition of alternative sentences relative to the 

parameters of the guidelines for all offenders. 

Trends in Alternative Sentences for United States Citizens 

 During the past ten years, the proportion of United States citizen federal offenders 

eligible for alternative sentences (i.e., those offenders with sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or 

C and who were not statutorily ineligible) decreased slightly from 27.6 percent in 2005 to 24.6 

percent in 2014. 

 As shown in Figure 5, the percentage of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone A 

decreased steadily from 10.6 percent to 6.4 percent during the time period.34 Zones B and C 

show a different trend. From 2005 through 2010 the proportion of offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone B decreased 

steadily and those with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C 

remained relatively consistent. 

However, beginning in 2011 

(following the Commission’s 

November 1, 2010 expansion of 

those zones), the proportion of 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in those two zones 

increased. As discussed 

previously, the zone expansion 

effectively moved offenders with 

sentencing ranges of 8-15 

months from Zone C to Zone B 

and moved offenders with 

sentencing ranges of 12-18 

months from Zone D to Zone C. 

Figure 5 shows, in part, that the increase in the percentage of offenders with sentencing ranges 

in Zones B and C was associated with a corresponding decrease for Zone D from 2011 through 
United States Sentencing Commission 

8 

2013. However, the data for 2014 indicate a possible shift in that trend. In 2014 the percentage 

of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D increased to 75.4 percent, which is comparable 

to the percentages observed prior to the zone expansion. 

 In contrast to the moderate decrease in the proportion of offenders eligible for alternative 

sentences (with sentencing ranges in Zones A through C), there was a larger decrease in the 

proportion of those offenders actually sentenced to an alternative. The proportion of eligible 

offenders sentenced to an alternative decreased from 71.9 percent to 65.0 percent during that 

time period.35 The following analyses examine the decreases in rates of alternative sentences 

for each sentencing zone. 

Decreases in Alternative Sentences in Each Zone

Zone A

 During the past ten years, the 

proportion of offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone A who were sentenced to 

an alternative (any probation sentence, 

including probation with community 

confinement or home detention) 

decreased slightly from 81.8 percent to 

78.0 percent. Figure 6 shows that this 

decrease is attributable to increases in 

sentences of imprisonment for those 

offenders from 17.2 percent to 21.0 

percent.36 Probation-only sentences 

consistently were the most commonly 

imposed alternative for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone A, accounting for approximately three-quarters of those sentences 

during the time period. 

Zone B 

During the past ten years, the overall 

trend for offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone B has been a decrease 

in alternative sentences (all types of 

probation sentences and split 

sentences) from 68.9 percent to 63.1 

percent. Figure 7 shows that, despite 

an overall decrease in alternative 

sentences, when courts did impose 

alternatives, the trend was increasingly 

toward the less severe type of 

alternative sentences.37 This is 

evidenced by the substantial shift in 

the types of probation imposed for 

offenders with sentencing ranges in 

Zone B. Between 2005 and 2014 the proportion of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B 

who were sentenced to probation with confinement conditions decreased by close to half 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

9 

(43.4% to 26.0%) but the proportion of those offenders sentenced to probation-only nearly 

doubled (15.6% to 28.2%).38

Zone C 

 Following the patterns for 

Zones A and B during the past 

ten years, the overall trend for 

offenders with sentencing ranges 

in Zone C has been a decrease 

in the rate of alternative 

sentences (all types of probation 

and split sentences) from 62.2 

percent to 58.5 percent. Similar 

to trends for Zone B, Figure 8 

shows that, despite the overall 

decrease in rates of alternative 

sentences, when courts did 

impose alternatives, they 

imposed less severe types of 

alternative sentences.39 Rates of probation-only sentences increased for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C, primarily due to a decrease in the imposition of split sentences. 

The rate of split sentences accounted for 33.7 percent of sentences for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C in 2005 and decreased substantially to 19.0 percent in 2014. The 

largest corresponding increase was in the rate of probation-only sentences, which accounted for 

13.5 percent of sentences for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone C in 2005 and 22.7 

percent in 2014. The shift in the types of sentences imposed for offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone C resulted in a relatively equal imposition of the three types of alternatives for 

those offenders by 2014. 

Zone D 

 During the past ten 

years, and consistent with the 

guidelines, the vast majority of 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D have been 

sentenced to imprisonment. 

Figure 9 demonstrates that 

this has been a relatively 

stable trend with imprisonment 

rates ranging from 89.0 

percent in 2005 to 87.6 

percent in 2014.40 
United States Sentencing Commission 

10 

Factors Associated with the Decrease in Alternative Sentences

 Though relatively modest, there has been a clear trend of a decreased rate of alternative 

sentences during the past ten years. The remainder of this report examines a number of factors 

that are associated with the imposition of alternative sentences to provide insight into this trend. 

Sentences Relative to the Guideline Range 

 Rates of within range sentences have 

decreased steadily and consistently since the 

U.S. Supreme Court declared that the 

guidelines were “effectively advisory” in United 

States v. Booker.

41 Rates of within range 

sentences for the U.S. citizen offenders eligible 

for alternative sentences decreased substantially from 65.4 percent to 41.9 percent from 2005 

to 2014. And, these decreases were equally distributed among offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zones B through D.42 

 The substantial decrease in rates of within range sentences seems inconsistent with the 

decreased rates of alternative sentences during the time period. The substantial increase in 

lenience, as evidenced by the increased rates of below range sentences, could reasonably be 

expected to coincide with a trend toward increasing lenience in terms of sentence type. In other 

words, the increase in departures and variances would seem to be associated with an increase 

in alternative sentences. Given this expectation, the decrease in rates of alternative sentences 

would be expected to occur primarily among within range sentences. The data indicate, 

however, that this was not the trend.

 Rates of alternative 

sentences decreased 

regardless of whether 

offenders were sentenced 

within or below the guideline 

range. Table 1 compares 

rates of alternative sentences 

in 2005 and 2014 for 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zones A through C 

who were sentenced within 

and below the guideline 

range.43 As would be 

expected, alternatives were 

imposed less often for within 

range sentences compared to 

below range sentences. 

However, the overall trend 

was toward decreased rates of alternatives for offenders sentenced within the guideline range 

(70.5% to 59.7%) and offenders with non-government sponsored below range sentences 

(85.8% to 76.7%). This trend was consistent, albeit to a lesser extent, for offenders with §5K1.1 

departures (84.9% to 78.2%). In contrast, the rate of alternative sentences for offenders with 

other government sponsored below range sentences increased during the time period (65.1% 

to 71.8%).44 

Rates of alternative sentences 

decreased regardless of whether 

offenders were sentenced within or 

below the guideline range. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

11 

 Despite the increased discretion that courts have used to vary from the guidelines after 

Gall, the data seem to demonstrate that courts are not using that discretion to impose 

alternative sentences at a greater rate. This apparent incongruity of lower rates of alternatives 

imposed in combination with higher rates of below range sentences, particularly for offenders 

with sentencing ranges in Zone B and C, raises the question of which factors contribute to the 

decision to impose such sentences. The following sections assess the association of various 

factors with the rate of alternative sentences for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zones B 

and C. 

Offense Type and Offender Seriousness

 As discussed earlier, the Commission incorporated provisions of both the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Ac of 1988 into the federal 

sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing options for less serious offenders. Considering the 

options provided for in the guidelines, it follows that the decreased rates of alternative 

sentences may be due to a shift in the nature of the offenses. The following sections explore 

this possibility by examining the types of offenses as well as the severity of those offenses 

during the past ten years for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zones B and C. 

Zone B 

 In general, the data suggest that the decrease in the use of alternative sentences for 

offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B is not a result of increased offense type 

seriousness. The rate at which courts sentenced offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B to 

alternatives decreased during the past ten years from 68.9 percent in 2005 to 63.1 percent in 

2014. Figure 10 shows that there has been very little change in the types of offenses resulting 

in sentencing ranges in Zone B; the general makeup is the same comparing 2005 and 2014.45 

For example, fraud offenses constituted the single largest offense category in each year, 

accounting for approximately 27 percent. The “other” offense category46 consistently has 

constituted a substantial proportion of offenses with sentencing ranges in Zone B, and that 

proportion increased somewhat during the time period from 17.7 percent to 22.5 percent. 

However, the composition of the “other” category has not changed substantially; administration 

of justice, prison, and gambling/lottery offenses accounted for the largest proportion of that 

category in each year. 

 Further evaluation of 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone B shows few 

notable changes during the past 

ten years in terms of various 

statutory and guideline-related 

measures of severity. Changes 

in criminal history and drug type 

are the only indicators of 

increased offense severity 

among offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone B. 

As shown in Table 2, the 

percentage of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone B in 

Criminal History Category I 
United States Sentencing Commission 

12 

decreased slightly from 65.1 percent in 2005 to 62.3 percent in 2014, indicating a slight increase 

in offender severity in terms of extent of criminal history.47 The percentage of drug offenses with 

sentencing ranges in Zone B involving marijuana48 decreased during the time period from 45.7 

percent to 37.5 percent.49 

 Other measures of offense severity remained relatively consistent during the time period 

for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B. Table 2 compares conviction rates for Class A 

or B felonies among offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B, a type of conviction that 

disqualifies offenders from receiving probation.50 The proportion of Class A and B felony 

convictions remained essentially unchanged (6.3% to 6.0%) during the time period. Offense 

severity measured in terms of monetary harm remained consistent with the median loss amount 

for fraud offenders increasing 

slightly from $18,000 in 2005 

to $23,832 in 2014. This small 

increase in median loss 

amount is not indicative of 

increased severity for fraud 

offenses as both amounts 

qualify for the same 4-level 

increase from the loss table in 

USSG §2B1.1 (for loss 

amounts greater than 

$10,000). Non-fraud white 

collar offenses51 show a small 

but similarly insubstantial 

decrease in monetary harm 

with medians decreasing from 

$15,000 in 2005 to $10,144 in 

2014. 

Expansion of Zone B

 As discussed above, the Commission expanded Zone B on the Sentencing Table in 

2010, to include offenders with sentencing ranges of 8-14 months and 9-15 months. These 

sentencing ranges previously were in Zone C. In the years since the amendment, a total of 23.0 

percent of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B were sentenced in the new Zone B 

cells.52 Alternative sentences were imposed for offenders with sentencing ranges in the new 

Zone B cells at a lower rate (55.0%) compared to those sentenced in the previously existing 

cells (65.1%). Offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells are more serious than 

those in the original Zone B cells to the extent that their guideline calculations resulted in final 

offense levels and Criminal History Categories that provide for higher guideline ranges. The 

decreased rates of alternatives for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B, therefore, might 

be expected given the increased offense and offender severity introduced by inclusion of the 

new cells. 

 The data indicate that the expansion of Zone B to include more serious offenders does 

not entirely account for the decreases. An analysis of only those Zone B offenders sentenced in 

the original cells (excluding offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells), 

demonstrates that the decrease in rates of alternative sentences was occurring independently of 

the change to the table. In 2005, 68.9 percent of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

13 

were sentenced to alternatives, compared to 65.1 percent of Zone B offenders sentenced in the 

old cells in 2014.53 

 Although the expansion of Zone B alone does not by itself explain the decrease in rates 

of alternative sentences for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B, it is, nevertheless, 

noteworthy that offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells were sentenced to 

alternatives at lower rates, as would be expected. The following analysis compares offenders 

with sentencing ranges in the old and new Zone B cells. 

 Table 3 shows twice 

the rate of convictions for 

Class A or B felonies among 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in the new Zone B cells 

(11.4%) compared to those 

with sentencing ranges in the 

old cells (4.2%).54 In addition, 

the percentage of offenders in 

Criminal History Category I 

was substantially lower for 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in the new Zone B cells 

(41.6%) compared to those 

with sentencing ranges in the 

old cells (66.5%). Considering 

specific offense types, offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells sentenced for 

drug and fraud offenses were more serious compared to those offenders with sentencing 

ranges in the old cells. Specifically, the percentage of drug offenses involving marijuana was 

substantially lower for offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells (34.8%) 

compared to those offenders sentenced in the old cells (48.1%).55 In addition, the median loss 

amounts for fraud offenses for offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone B cells 

($32,382) was greater than those offenders with sentencing ranges in the old cells ($19,871); 

loss amounts corresponding to a 6-level and 4-level increase from the loss table USSG §2B1.1, 

respectively. 

Zone C 

 A comparison of offense types for 

offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone 

C shows a combination of increases and 

decreases in severity during the time 

period. The rate at which courts imposed 

alternative sentences for those offenders 

decreased during the past ten years from 

62.2 percent in 2005 to 58.5 percent in 

2014. Figure 11 shows very little change 

in the types of offenses that resulted in 

sentencing ranges in Zone C.56 For 

example, fraud offenses constituted the 

single largest offense category in each 

year, although the percentage of fraud 
United States Sentencing Commission 

14 

offenses decreased somewhat from 25.0 percent in 2005 to 22.0 percent in 2014. Drug 

offenses constituted the second largest category accounting for 17.9 percent of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C in 2005 and 17.0 percent in 2014. Similarly, the “other” category 

consistently accounted for a substantial proportion of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone 

C and the proportion increased from 13.4 percent in 2005 to 17.8 percent in 2014. In each year, 

however, the “other” category primarily comprised of minor property offenses and other 

miscellaneous offenses.57 

 Following a similar 

pattern, Table 4 shows that 

conviction rates for Class A or B 

felonies among offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C 

decreased by about half from 9.7 

percent in 2005 to 4.0 percent in 

2014, resulting in an increase in 

offenders eligible for probation.58 

Another decrease in severity is 

indicated by the increase in the 

proportion of offenders with little 

or no criminal history. The 

percentage of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone C 

assigned to Criminal History 

Category I increased from 66.0 percent in 2005 to 75.5 percent in 2014. These decreases in 

severity, however, were offset by other increases. The rate of more serious drug offenses 

increased, as evidenced by the decrease in the percentage of offenders sentenced for drug 

offenses involving marijuana from 56.5 percent in 2005 to 45.6 percent in 2014. The severity of 

monetary harm also increased, with the median loss amount for offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone C sentenced for fraud increasing by more than half from $44,267 in 2005 to 

$70,544 in 2014. The increase in median loss corresponds to a two level increase on the loss 

table in USSG §2B1.1 from 6-levels (for more than $30,000) to 8-levels (for more than $70,000). 

Similarly, the median monetary harms for non-fraud white collar offenses increased by nearly 

half from $45,058 in 2005 to $61,733 in 2014. 

Expansion of Zone C

 As discussed above, the Commission expanded Zone C in 2010 to include offenders 

with sentencing ranges of 12-18 months that previously were in Zone D and thus ineligible for 

alternative sentences under the guidelines. In the years since the amendment, 54.4 percent of 

offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone C were sentenced in the new cells.59 Offenders with 

sentencing ranges in the new Zone C cells are more serious than those in the original Zone C 

cells, to the extent that their guideline calculations resulted in final offense levels and Criminal 

History Categories that provide for higher guideline ranges. The decreasing rates of 

alternatives for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone C, therefore, might be expected given 

the increased offense and offender severity introduced by the inclusion of the new cells. 

 The data indicate that the expansion of Zone C alone does not entirely account for the 

decreasing rates of alternative sentences. Analysis of only those Zone C offenders sentenced 

in the original cells (excluding offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone C cells) 

demonstrates a small decrease in rates of alternatives. In other words, those offenders who 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

15 

would have been eligible for an alternative sentence even before the zone expansion received 

such sentences less often than in the past. In 2005, 62.2 percent of offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone C were sentenced to alternatives, compared to 59.8 percent of offenders 

sentenced in the old Zone C cells in 2014. 

 Although the expansion of Zone C alone does not explain the decrease in rates of 

alternative sentences for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone C, it is again noteworthy that 

offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone C cells were sentenced to alternatives at 

lower rates, as would be expected. The following analysis compares offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone C sentenced in the old and the new cells. 

 As shown in Table 5, 

alternative sentences were 

imposed for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in the new 

Zone C cells at a lower rate 

(55.1%) compared to those in 

the old cells (61.8%).60 

Although constituting a 

relatively small percentage, 

Class A or B felony convictions 

were more common for 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in the new Zone C cells 

(6.1%) compared to those in 

the old cells (1.4%). Offense 

severity, as measured by 

monetary harm, also indicates 

differences. Fraud offenders with sentencing ranges in the new Zone C cells had a substantially 

higher median loss amount of $81,637 (corresponding to an 8-level increase from the loss table 

in §2B1.1 for more than $70,000) compared to fraud offenders with sentencing ranges in the old 

Zone C cells, $52,328 (corresponding to a 6-level increase from the loss table in §2B1.1 for 

more than $30,000). Similarly, the monetary harm for non-fraud white collar fraud offenders 

with sentencing ranges in the new Zone C cells was greater with a median of $78,549 

compared to offenders with sentencing ranges in the old Zone C cells with a median of $44,389. 

The two groups of offenders, however, were similar in terms of criminal history and drug type. 

Considering offenders with sentencing ranges in both the new and old Zone C cells, 

approximately three-quarters of offenders in each group were in Criminal History Category I and 

approximately half of the drug offenses in each group involved marijuana. 

Offender Characteristics 

 In addition to offense and offender severity, the data indicate demographic differences in 

imposition of alternative sentences. Table 6 shows rates of alternatives imposed for offenders 

in demographic categories with sentencing ranges in Zones A through C in 2014.61 As was true 

for all offenders, the proportion of offenders sentenced to an alternative sentence generally 

decreased in the more serious sentencing zones. More than half of offenders in each race 

category were sentenced to an alternative. However, there was a notable and consistent 

difference in the rates of alternative sentences comparing the groups of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in each of Zones A through C. Alternatives were more often imposed for 
United States Sentencing Commission 

16 

White offenders than for other 

groups of offenders. As shown in 

Table 6, 81.8 percent of White 

offenders with sentencing ranges 

in Zone A were sentenced to 

alternatives, 69.1 percent for 

Zone B, and 65.9 percent for 

Zone C. Black offenders and 

offenders in the Other Race 

category had rates of alternatives 

below those of White offenders.62 

For example, alternative 

sentences were imposed for 78.7 

percent of Black offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone A, 

63.4 percent for Zone B, and 

51.8 percent for Zone C. 

Alternative sentences were 

imposed for 72.5 percent of offenders in the Other Race category with sentencing ranges in 

Zone A, 55.3 percent for Zone B, and 64.8 percent for Zone C. The rates of alternatives were 

consistently lowest for Hispanic offenders with sentencing ranges in each of the zones: A 

(68.8%), B (53.3%), and C (49.6%). 

 Black and Hispanic offenders consistently were sentenced to alternatives less often than 

White offenders. The data indicate some differences in criminal history and offense severity 

that provide some insight to this finding. Black offenders had more serious criminal history 

scores compared to the other groups. Considering all offenders sentenced in Zones A through 

C represented in Table 6, 65.6 percent of Black offenders were in Criminal History Category I, 

compared to more than 75 percent for each of the other three groups. In addition, the four 

major drug types punished most severely under the guidelines, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, 

heroin, and methamphetamine accounted for 56.4 percent of drug offenses involving Black 

offenders, compared to less than 30 percent for each of the other three groups. Among 

Hispanic drug offenders sentenced in Zones A through C, the predominant drug type was 

marijuana, accounting for 71.7 percent of those offenses. As noted earlier, marijuana is subject 

to the least severe penalties of the five most common drug types and these penalty differences 

would seem to indicate offenses of lesser severity. However, Hispanic drug offenders were 

overwhelmingly (90.0%) sentenced under the drug trafficking guideline (USSG §2D1.1), a 

higher rate than drug offenders in the other three groups. In turn, offenders in the other three 

groups were sentenced under the simple possession guideline (USSG §2D2.1) at rates about 

twice as high as for Hispanic offenders.63

 Table 6 also shows that, for offenders with sentencing ranges in each of Zones A 

through C, female offenders were sentenced to alternatives at higher rates than male offenders. 

This difference is especially apparent for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B, in which 

75.4 percent of female offenders were sentenced to alternatives compared to 55.9 percent of 

male offenders. 

 In general, alternative sentences were imposed for more than half of offenders in each 

age group. Excluding offenders under the age of 21, there was a clear trend of increasing rates 

of alternatives as the age of the offender increased, and this trend was consistent across the 

sentencing zones. The rates of alternative sentences for offenders under the age of 21 are less 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

17 

consistent and are actually lowest for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone B rather than for 

those with sentencing ranges in Zone C.

Offenders with Sentencing Ranges in Zone D Sentenced to Alternatives 

 As noted, offenders with sentencing ranges 

in Zone D of the Sentencing Table are ineligible 

for alternative sentences under the guidelines 

absent a downward departure or variance. 

Specifically, USSG §5C1.1(f) states: 

“If the applicable guideline range is in Zone D of 

the Sentencing Table, the minimum term shall be 

satisfied by a sentence of imprisonment.” 

 Given this limitation, it is not surprising that rates of alternative sentences are relatively 

low for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D. The percentage of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D sentenced to alternatives has averaged about 12 percent during 

the past ten years. Whereas the proportion of offenders sentenced to alternatives with 

sentencing ranges in Zones A through C declined during the past ten years, it increased 

marginally for those in Zone D from 11.0 percent in 2005 to 12.4 percent in 2014 (see Figure 

9).64

 Figure 12 shows the 

types of alternative sentences 

imposed for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D.65 

During the past ten years, 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D sentenced to 

alternatives consistently have 

been sentenced in roughly 

equal percentages to probationonly, probation with 

confinement conditions, and 

split sentences. Probation-only 

was the most commonly 

imposed alternative for 

offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D in 2014 

(37.3%), having surpassed 

probation with confinement conditions in 2009 as the most commonly imposed type of 

alternative sentence. 

 Despite the relative consistency with which courts have imposed alternative sentences 

for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D, the means by which they arrived at those 

sentences has changed. As shown in Figure 13, the proportion of offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D sentenced to an alternative pursuant to a §5K1.1 departure decreased from 

The percentage of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D sentenced 

to alternatives has averaged about 12 

percent during the past ten years. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

18 

51.0 percent in 2005 to 33.1 

percent in 2014.66 During the 

ten-year period, there was a 

corresponding increase in the 

proportion of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D 

sentenced to an alternative by 

means of one of the other two 

below range options. The rate 

of non-government sponsored 

below range sentences 

increased from 40.9 percent to 

45.7 percent. The rate of other 

government sponsored below 

range sentences more than 

doubled from 8.1 percent to 

21.2 percent. 

 Considering that under the guidelines, offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D only 

can be sentenced to an alternative as the result of a departure or variance, it is noteworthy to 

examine more closely the types of cases in which courts have imposed such sentences. The 

following analysis compares offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D sentenced to an 

alternative to those sentenced to imprisonment in 2014. 

 Figure 14 shows notable differences in offense types for the two groups of offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D.67 Fraud offenses were more common among offenders 

sentenced to alternatives (25.9%) compared to those sentenced to imprisonment (15.2%). 

Similarly, non-fraud white collar 

offenses (12.6%) were more 

common among offenders 

sentenced to alternatives 

compared to those sentenced to 

imprisonment (5.9%). Conversely, 

firearms offenses occurred at half 

the rate among offenders 

sentenced to alternatives (11.3%) 

compared to those sentenced to 

imprisonment (22.4%). 

 Comparing the severity of 

offense types for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D, there 

are some differences and some 

similarities regarding those 

sentenced to alternatives versus 

those sentenced to imprisonment. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

19 

Table 7 shows the median loss amount for fraud offenders sentenced to alternatives was 

$391,461 compared to a median loss of $636,261 for those sentenced to imprisonment.68 While 

the median loss amount for the 

offenders sentenced to 

imprisonment was markedly 

greater, the corresponding 

offense level increases for 

those amounts on the loss table 

in USSG §2B1.1 are 12-levels 

and 14-levels, respectively. 

The median monetary harms 

for the non-fraud white collar 

offenses showed very little 

difference at $220,890 and 

$195,744. Finally, convictions 

for Class A or B felonies were 

somewhat less common among 

offenders sentenced to 

alternatives (5.4%) compared to 

those sentenced to imprisonment (8.2%).

 A comparison of drug offenses, however, demonstrates notable differences. The 

proportion of drug offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D sentenced to alternatives 

(29.0%) was roughly equal to the proportion of those sentenced to imprisonment (31.6%); 

however, the nature of those drug offenses was substantially different. Drug offenses involving 

marijuana were nearly twice as common among offenders sentenced to alternatives (20.1%) 

compared to such offenders sentenced to imprisonment (12.7%).69

 Further comparisons of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D demonstrate 

noteworthy patterns in the imposition of alternative sentences. The final offense level is the 

fundamental measure of offense severity under the federal sentencing guidelines. Notably, a 

comparison of the average final offense levels for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D 

and their relative proximity to Zone C demonstrated little difference. The average final offense 

level for offenders sentenced to alternatives was 19 compared to 22 for those sentenced to 

imprisonment. Offense levels for Zone D range from 14 to 43, putting the averages for both 

groups of offenders in the lower third of Zone D, relatively low on the Sentencing Table and in 

similar proximity to Zone C. 

 Whereas offense seriousness as indicated by the final offense level does not appear to 

be related to the rate of imposition of alternative sentences, the other component of the 

Sentencing Table, Criminal History Category, does. A comparison of offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D shows a substantial difference in the rates of alternative sentences. More 

than two-thirds (70.9%) of offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D sentenced to alternatives 

were in Criminal History Category I compared to half as many (37.2%) who were sentenced to 

imprisonment. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

20 

Offender Characteristics 

 Alternative sentences were 

imposed less often for offenders with 

sentencing ranges in Zone D 

compared to those in Zone A through 

C, but the trends for the various 

demographic groups, as shown in 

Table 8, were similar. Overall, White 

offenders with sentencing ranges in 

Zone D (14.9%) were sentenced to 

alternatives at a higher rate than other 

racial groups.70 The rates of alternative 

sentences for Black offenders were the 

lowest among each of the groups 

(8.2%). To some extent, this difference 

may be accounted for by criminal 

history and its relationship with 

alternative sentences as previously 

described. Half as many (23.3%) Black offenders were in Criminal History I compared to the 

other groups. Approximately half of White (50.8%), Hispanic (48.0%), and “Other” offenders 

(54.4%) were in Criminal History Category I.71 In addition to criminal history, there also were 

differences in offense severity comparing Zone D offenders in different racial groups. Nearly 

one-third (31.5%) of Black offenders in Zone D were sentenced for firearms offenses, compared 

to 18 percent and less for the other three groups. In addition, drug offenses involving marijuana 

were much less common among Black offenders, accounting for 6.7 percent of those offenses, 

compared to 13 to 25 percent for the other three groups. 

 Female offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D were sentenced to alternatives 

(22.8%) at twice the rate of their male counterparts (10.0%). 

 The pattern of imposition of alternative sentences for offenders in different age groups 

for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D is similar that of the other sentencing zones 

discussed earlier. Excluding offenders under the age of 21, there is a general trend for 

increasing rates of alternative sentences with increasing age for offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D. Offenders under the age of 21 had rates of alternative sentences that were 

contrary to the trend, however, with their rates falling in between offenders in their 30s and 40s. 

Conclusion 

 The federal sentencing guidelines provide for a variety of alternative sentences that can 

be substituted for imprisonment by means of a combination of probation and confinement in 

Zones A through C on the Sentencing Table. The Commission expanded these options to a 

larger proportion of offenders by way of its 2010 expansion of Zones B and C on the Sentencing 

Table. Despite the array of sentencing options available to sentencing courts, there have been 

decreases during the past ten years in both the proportion of offenders eligible for such 

sentences, as well as in the proportion of such sentences imposed for those eligible. 

 This decrease in alternative sentences occurred despite increased discretion for courts 

to sentence offenders below the applicable guideline range since Booker and Gall. Since those 

two decisions, there has been a steady overall increase in sentences below the guideline range 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

21 

due to downward departures or variances, but the increased use of that discretion has not 

resulted in the imposition of higher rates of alternative sentences as one might expect. 

 The decreasing trend in the imposition of alternative sentences in part is due to the 

Commission’s 2010 expansion of Zones B and C on the Sentencing Table. The 2010 zone 

expansions introduced relatively more serious offenders into Zones B and C. Offenders with 

sentencing ranges in the expanded cells received alternative sentences at lower rates 

compared to offenders with sentencing ranges in previously existing cells. The 2010 zone 

expansions, however, may only partially explain the lower rates of alternative sentences 

because this steady trend began prior to 2010, and those earlier decreasing trends did not 

appear to be related to any otherwise notable increases in offense or offender severity for those 

eligible offenders. During the same time period studied, sentencing courts have used their 

departure or variance authority to impose alternative sentences at a low but relatively consistent 

rate for offenders with sentencing ranges in Zone D. 

 It is noteworthy that, in addition to the overall trend of decreasing imposition of 

alternatives, there are substantial differences in the rates of alternative sentences for eligible 

offenders in different racial groups. Eligible White offenders were sentenced to alternative 

sentences at higher rates than eligible Black, Hispanic, and offenders in the Other race 

category. Differences in criminal history and offense severity may account for some of these 

differences. 

While this reports identifies several possible reasons for the decreasing rates of 

alternative sentences and the demographic differences observed, this is an area that may 

warrant further study in the future. 

 
United States Sentencing Commission 

22 

1 The Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. Established 

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, its principal purposes are (1) to establish sentencing 

policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines regarding the appropriate form 

and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; (2) to advise and assist 

Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the development of effective and 

efficient crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of 

information on federal crime and sentencing issues. 

2 COURTNEY SEMISCH, U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING IN THE FEDERAL 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 5 (2009). 

3 552 U.S. 38 (2007). In Gall, the Court affirmed as “reasonable” the district court’s sentence of 

probation, which was a substantial downward variance from the guideline-recommended 

sentencing range of 30-37 months of incarceration. See id., at 59-60 (“On abuse-of-discretion 

review, the Court of Appeals should have given due deference to the District Court's reasoned 

and reasonable decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the 

sentence.”). 

4 The impact of Gall is reflected in the Commission’s decision to analyze sentencing data in the 

periods before and after Gall. See U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, REPORT ON THE CONTINUING IMPACT OF 

UNITED STATES V. BOOKER ON FEDERAL SENTENCING 53 (2012). The Commission’s 2009 report 

analyzed data only through the end of fiscal year 2007, which predated the Court’s decision in 

Gall.

5 Pub. L. No. 98–473. 

6 See 28 U.S.C. § 994(j). 

7 Probation terms are authorized for certain felony offenders for one to five years and for 

misdemeanor offenders for no more than five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c). 

8 Pub. L. No. 100–690. 

9 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563 and 3583. 

10 See U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, GUIDELINES MANUAL §§5B1.1-5B1.3, 5C1.1(b)-(e) (2014) 

[hereinafter USSG]. 

11 The offense level is calculated using offense specific aggravating and mitigating factors 

prescribed by the guidelines. The Criminal History Category is based on the recency and 

severity of an offender’s prior sentences and supervision status. The sentencing range is 

determined by the intersection of the offense level and Criminal History Category on the 

Sentencing Table. For example, an offender at offense level nine and Criminal History 

Category III faces a sentencing range of eight to 14 months. See USSG §1B1.1 for an overview 

of guideline application, including offense level and Criminal History Category computations. 

12 See USSG §5C1.1. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

23 

13 Although these options are conditions of probation, the guidelines allow them to be 

substituted for incarceration in order to meet the conditions of 28 U.S.C. § 994(b)(2). In the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress directed that the maximum of a sentencing range 

could not exceed the minimum by more than six months or 25 percent of the minimum. The 

guidelines allow non-prison sentences for Zone B offenders, creating sentencing ranges larger 

than six months because the minimum confinement term for a probation sentence is zero 

months (the maximum terms in Zone B begin at seven months). The guidelines avoid 

sentencing ranges greater than six months for Zone B offenders by requiring probation terms for 

these to include intermediate confinement. 

14 Non-guideline sentences are sentences imposed below the guideline range that only mention 

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 18 U.S.C. § 3553, or related factors as a reason 

for a below-range sentence, or do not provide sufficient information to be classified as a 

departure. This category includes cases that cite departure reasons that are not affirmatively 

and specifically identified in the provisions, policy statements, or commentary of the federal 

Guidelines Manual and cases that do not provide any reason for the sentence below the 

guideline range. 

15 For example, a sentence range of ten to 16 months associated with a final offense level of 12 

and Criminal History Category of I is in Zone C of the Sentencing Table. If the court sentences 

the offender to the minimum of ten months, it may impose a term of supervised release with 

conditions of community confinement for up to five of the ten months. 

16 See USSG App. C, amend. 738 (eff. November 1, 2010). 

17 See 18 U.S.C. § 3561. 

18 Class A felonies carry sentencing terms of life or death. Class B felonies carry sentences of 

25 years or more. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559. 

19 See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 

shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this 

subparagraph.”). 

20 See 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1)-(3). 

21 See USSG §§5B1.1 and 5C1.1. 

22 See 18 U.S.C. § 994(i). 

23 See USSG §5C1.1(c)(2) & (d)(1). 

24 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 660 were 

excluded because they did not involve sentences of probation or prison. An additional case was 

excluded due to missing information on type of sentence imposed. 

25 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 2,177 were 

excluded due to missing information on statutory minimum sentence. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

24 

26 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under a statute requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence or were missing information on statutory minimums. 

27 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. 

28 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. 

29 See Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 1682 (2013) (“[I]f a noncitizen has been convicted 

of [an] . . . ‘aggravated felon[y],’ then he is not only deportable, [8 U.S.C.] § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 

but also ineligible for these discretionary forms of relief. See §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); §§ 

1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C).”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (list of “aggravated felonies” which, 

upon conviction, will result in deportation). Among aggravated felonies are federal drugtrafficking offenses, federal firearms offenses, illegal reentry by a previously deported alien, and 

fraud offenses with loss amounts exceeded $10,000. See 8 U.S.C, § 1101(a)(43)(B), (E), (M) & 

(O). Those four types of offenses alone account for the vast majority of federal offense types. 

See 2014 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS, FIGURE A (2015). Most other 

common federal offenses types – e.g., bank robbery (for which a term of imprisonment of one 

year or more was imposed), child pornography offenses, and alien-smuggling offenses – also 

qualify as “aggravated felonies.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), (I) & (N). 

30 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 28,460 cases were excluded because they involved U.S. citizens 

(28,407) or were missing information on citizenship (53). 

31 See USSG §5C1.1(b). 

32 The definition of “alternative sentence” for offenders whose sentencing ranges are in Zone A 

is different than in the 2009 report. In that report sentences to probation-only for offenders 

whose sentencing ranges were in Zone A were defined as alternatives. 

33 See USSG §5C1.1(c)-(e). 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

25 

34 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). One case was 

excluded because it was missing information on sentencing zone. 

35 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 40,753 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zone D (40,752) or were missing 

information on sentencing zone (1). 

36 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 

243,679 cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones B, C, or D 

(234,678) or were missing information on sentencing zone (1). 

37 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 

244,313 cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, C, or D 

(244,312) or were missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 98 cases were 

excluded because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the 

applicable guideline range.

38 As discussed above, a sentence of probation-only imposed for an offender with a sentencing 

range in Zone B would be a downward departure or variance. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

26 

39 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 

243,711 cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or D 

(243,710) or were missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 45 cases were 

excluded because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the 

applicable guideline range. 

40 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005-2014, a total of 

237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum (35,077). Of 

the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or missing 

guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded because they 

did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 70,453 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C (70,452) or were 

missing information on sentencing zone (1). 

41 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005); See also U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, REPORT ON THE CONTINUING IMPACT 

OF UNITED STATES V. BOOKER ON FEDERAL SENTENCING 69 (2012). 

42 The rate of within range sentences in Zone B decreased from 74.0% to 52.8%, in Zone C 

from 56.9% to 36.5%, and in Zone D from 60.5% to 36.7%. Nearly 100% of Zone A offenders 

consistently were sentenced within the applicable guideline range during the time period. 

43 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 40,753 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zone D (40,752) or were missing 

information on sentencing zone (1). In addition, 1,302 cases were excluded because they 

involved sentences above the applicable guideline range (1,210) or were missing information on 

sentence relative to the guideline range (92).
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

27 

44 Other government sponsored below range sentences, as a category, include a number of 

non-§5K1.1 below range sentences in which an assessment of the reasons given by the court 

indicates that the government otherwise sponsored the sentence. This category includes cases 

for which the origins of the departure are indicated by the court’s use of the check boxes on the 

Statement of Reasons (SOR) form. Additionally, all cases with one or more of the following 

reasons were classified as being sponsored by the government regardless of whether the SOR 

indicated sponsorship: pursuant to a plea agreement (binding, non‐binding, or unknown), fast 

track, savings to the government, early plea, deportation, waiver of indictment and/or appeal, 

other government motion, global disposition, due to stipulations, facilitated early release of a 

material witness, joint recommendation, and large number of immigration cases. It is possible 

that those involving plea agreements and other stipulations may include an alternative sentence 

in these instances. 

45 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 50,373 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, C, or D (50,372) or were 

missing information on sentencing zone (1). 

46 The “other” category consists of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual abuse, assault, 

arson, burglary, auto theft, racketeering, gambling/lottery, civil rights, pornography/prostitution, 

child pornography, prison offenses, environmental offenses, national defense, antitrust, food 

and drug and other regulatory offenses. 

47 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 50,373 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, C, or D (50,372) or were 

missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 17 cases were excluded because 

their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the guideline range. Cases 

missing information for a variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

48 See USSG §2D1.1 for sentencing of offenders convicted of drug trafficking offenses. 

Marijuana is subject to the least severe penalties of the five most common drug types 

sentenced in the federal system (crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and 

powder cocaine). 

49 The decrease in marijuana offenses primarily is accounted for by an increase in oxycodone 

offenses from 8.6% to 33.3% during the time period. 
United States Sentencing Commission 

28 

50 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1) offenders convicted of Class A and B felonies (with 

statutory maximum penalties of 25 years or more) are ineligible for probation. 

51 The non-fraud white collar category includes embezzlement, forgery/counterfeiting, bribery, 

money laundering, and tax offenses. 

52 Of the 326,245 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2011 through 2014, 

90,595 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum (77,365) or were missing information on statutory minimum (13,320). Of the 

remaining 235,650 cases, 20,722 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application 

information. An additional 321 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of 

prison or probation (309) or were missing information on sentence imposed (12). An additional 

104,278 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens (104,093) or were missing 

information on citizenship (185). An additional 100,720 cases were excluded because they 

involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, C, or D. An additional 49 cases were excluded 

because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the applicable 

guideline range. An additional 521 cases were excluded because they were sentenced using a 

Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2010. 

53 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 

246,401 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentencing ranges in the original 

Zone B cells (246,400) or were missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 92 

cases were excluded because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was 

above the applicable guideline range. 

54 Of the 326,245 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2011 through 2014, a 

total of 90,595 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (77,365) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(13,230). Of the remaining 235,650 cases, 20,722 were excluded due to incomplete guideline 

application information. An additional 321 cases were excluded because they did not involve 

sentences of prison or probation (309) or were missing information on sentence imposed (12). 

An additional 104,278 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens (104,093) or 

were missing information on citizenship (185). An additional 100,720 cases were excluded 

because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, C, or D. An additional 49 cases were 

excluded because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the 

applicable guideline range. An additional 521 cases were excluded because they were 

sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2010. Cases missing 

information for a variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

55 Marijuana also is the predominant drug type for Zone B offenders sentenced in the new cells, 

but there are larger proportions of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin offenses 

compared to the old cells. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

29 

56 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 50,123 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or D (50,122) or were 

missing information on sentencing zone (1). 

57 See 2014 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS, APPENDIX A (2015) for a list of 

offenses in each category. 

58 Of the 148,298 cases received by the Commission in fiscal years 2005 and 2014, a total of 

42,868 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum sentence (35,927) or were missing information on statutory minimum (6,941). Of the 

remaining 105,430 cases, 9,836 were excluded due to incomplete (6,790) or missing guideline 

application information (151). An additional 230 cases were excluded because they did not 

involve sentences of prison or probation (196) or were missing information on sentence 

imposed (34). An additional 40,271 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(40,006) or were missing information on citizenship (265). An additional 50,123 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or D (50,122) or were 

missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional two cases were excluded because 

their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the guideline range. Cases 

missing information for a variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

59 Of the 326,245 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2011 through 2014 

90,595 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory 

minimum (77,365) or were missing information on statutory minimum (13,230). Of the 

remaining 235,650 cases, 20,722 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application 

information. An additional 321 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of 

prison or probation (309) or were missing information on sentence imposed (12). An additional 

104,278 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens (104,093) or were missing 

information on citizenship (185). An additional 98,913 cases were excluded because they 

involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or D. An additional 19 cases were excluded because 

their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the guideline range. An 

additional 477 cases were excluded because they were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in 

effect prior to November 1, 2010. 

60 Of the 326,245 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2011 through 2014, a 

total of 90,595 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (77,365) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(13,230). Of the remaining 235,650 cases, 20,722 were excluded due to incomplete guideline 

application information. An additional 321 cases were excluded because they did not involve 

sentences of prison or probation (309) or were missing information on sentence imposed (12). 

An additional 104,278 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens (104,093) or 

were missing information on citizenship (185). An additional 98,913 cases were excluded 

because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or D. An additional 19 cases were 
United States Sentencing Commission 

30 

excluded because their alternative sentence involved a total sentence that was above the 

guideline range. An additional 477 cases were excluded because they were sentenced using a 

Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2010. Cases missing information for a 

variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

61 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(23,247) or were missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zone D. Cases missing information for a 

variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

62 The “Other” category primarily consists of Native Americans (46.8%) and Asian/Pacific 

Islanders (46.0%). The remainder are classified as mixed race (0.1%) and other (7.1%). 

63 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(23,247) or were missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zone D. Cases missing information for a 

variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

64 Of the 785,953 cases, a total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions 

under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information 

on statutory minimum (35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to 

incomplete (49,429) or missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases 

were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were 

missing information on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded 

because they involved non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship 

(1,072). An additional 70,453 cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in 

Zones A, B, or C (70,452) or were missing information on sentencing zone (1). 

65 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 70,453 

cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C (70,452) or 

were missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 173,645 cases were excluded 

because they involved prison sentences. 
Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System 

31 

66 Of the 785,953 cases received by the Commission from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, a 

total of 237,052 were excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a 

mandatory minimum sentence (201,975) or were missing information on statutory minimum 

(35,077). Of the remaining 548,901 cases, 49,580 were excluded due to incomplete (49,429) or 

missing guideline application information (151). An additional 986 cases were excluded 

because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation (823) or were missing information 

on sentence imposed (163). An additional 230,950 cases were excluded because they involved 

non-citizens (229,878) or were missing information on citizenship (1,072). An additional 70,453 

cases were excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C (70,452) or 

were missing information on sentencing zone (1). An additional 173,645 cases were excluded 

because they involved prison sentences. An additional seven cases were excluded due to 

insufficient information in the case documentation to determine sentence relative to the 

guideline range. 

67 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(23,247) or were missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C. 

68 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(23,247) or were missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C. Cases missing 

information for a variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

69 Methamphetamine is the predominant drug type among drug offenders with sentencing 

ranges in Zone D not sentenced to alternatives, accounting for 24.3% of drug offenders 

sentenced to prison only. 

70 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in fiscal year 2014, a total of 19,275 were 

excluded because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum 

sentence (16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 

56,561 cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An 

additional 89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or 

probation. An additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens 

(23,247) or were missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were 

excluded because they involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C. Cases missing 

information for a variable were excluded from the analysis for that variable. 

71 Of the 75,836 cases received by the Commission in 2014, a total of 19,275 were excluded 

because they involved convictions under statutes requiring a mandatory minimum sentence 

(16,606) or were missing information on statutory minimum (2,669). Of the remaining 56,561 
United States Sentencing Commission 

32 

cases, 4,765 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. An additional 

89 cases were excluded because they did not involve sentences of prison or probation. An 

additional 23,300 cases were excluded because they involved non-citizens (23,247) or were 

missing information on citizenship (53). An additional 6,983 cases were excluded because they 

involved sentencing ranges in Zones A, B, or C.