INTER-DISTRICT DIFFERENCES IN 

FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES

Sentencing Practices Across Districts from 2005 - 2017

January 2020

United States Sentencing Commission

CHARLES R. BREYER 

Commissioner

DANNY C. REEVES 

Commissioner

PATRICIA K. CUSHWA

Ex Officio

DAVID RYBICKI

Ex Officio

KENNETH P. COHEN

Staff Director

JAMES T. STRAWLEY

Deputy Staff Director

JANUARY 2020

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

INTER-DISTRICT DIFFERENCES IN 

FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES

Sentencing Practices Across Districts from 2005 - 2017

1

METHODOLOGY

9 The Commission’s 2012 Study

13 Refining the 2012 Study

14 Case Exclusions

16 Analysis by Primary Guideline

18 Measuring Judicial Discretion

19 Graphical Presentation of the Results

FINDINGS 

21 Cumulative Findings

22 USSG §2B1.1

24 USSG §2D1.1

28 USSG §2K2.1

30 USSG §2L1.2

33 Inter-District Consistency 

39 Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION & KEY FINDINGS

5 Introduction

7 Key Findings

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT BODY 

Table of Contents

CONCLUSIONS

41 Conclusion
January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

2 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

APPENDIX C

63 Statistical Outliers

64 USSG §2B1.1

65 USSG §2D1.1

66 USSG §2K2.1

67 USSG §2L1.2

APPENDIX A

43 Standard Deviation Analysis

APPENDIX B

45 District Lists by Period

46 USSG §2B1.1

50 USSG §2D1.1

54 USSG §2K2.1

58 USSG §2L1.2

Table of Contents

APPENDICES
3

APPENDIX D

69 USSG §2D1.1 Analysis by Drug Type

70 Powder Cocaine

71 Crack Cocaine 

72 Heroin 

73 Marijuana

74 Methamphetamine 

75 All Other Drugs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX E

77 Matched Analysis

78 Methodology 

80 Results
January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

4 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Having analyzed 

sentencing differences 

within the same 

courthouse in the last 

report, this report now 

turns to examining 

regional differences 

post-Booker. 
5

The United States Sentencing Commission provides 

timely and objective sentencing data, information, and 

analysis to inform the ongoing discussion regarding 

sentencing practices in the federal system.1 This report 

continues the Commission’s work analyzing variations 

in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations 

in sentencing outcomes—in the federal courts since 

the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States 

v. Booker,

2 which struck the mandatory provision of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), making the guidelines effectively 

advisory. 

In 2012, the Commission released its report to 

Congress, titled Report on the Continuing Impact of United 

States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing,

3 which analyzed 

sentencing data over a broad period from October 

1995 through September 2011. In its 2012 Booker

Report, the Commission’s analysis of sentencing data 

showed increasing differences among the 94 federal 

judicial districts. The analysis focused on judges’ rates 

of non-government sponsored below range sentences. 

Such sentences result from downward “departures” 

pursuant to commentary or policy statements in the 

Sentencing Practices Across Districts 

2005 - 2017

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines Manual or downward “variances” that are 

outside of the guidelines framework pursuant to the 

courts’ consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a), without a motion by the government.4 In the 

2012 report, the Commission concluded that “the rates 

of non-government sponsored below range sentences 

have increased in most districts ..., indicating that 

sentencing outcomes increasingly depend[ed] upon the 

district in which the defendant [was] sentenced.”5

The Commission has since continued its study of the 

impact of Booker on federal sentencing in a series of 

reports updating the analyses and findings of the 

Commission’s 2012 report. The first such update, 

issued in 2017, focused on demographic differences 

at the national level in federal sentencing.6 Using 

a multivariate regression analysis, the Commission 

concluded that the increases in demographic differences 

in sentencing that had occurred during the first seven 

years after Booker—including a higher average sentence 

for Black males compared to White males—persisted in 

the subsequent five-year period.7 The second update 

focused on judges’ sentencing practices, comparing 
6

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

For purposes of this analysis, the Commission relied 

upon the same methodological principles utilized in 

its study on intra-city sentencing practices. However, 

instead of analyzing individual judges’ practices, this 

report studies sentencing practices across districts, 

comparing each district’s sentencing practices to the 

average sentencing practices of all districts in the 

analysis. Recognizing the potential impact of regional 

differences in caseload (i.e., some districts may have 

more of one type of offense than others), the analysis 

is conducted separately for each of the four major 

offense types—fraud, drug trafficking, firearms, and 

immigration—and only includes those districts with a 

minimum of 50 cases sentenced based on the relevant 

guideline during the period being studied. Using this 

updated methodology, the Commission finds that 

the increased differences in sentencing practices first 

reported at the district level in the Commission’s 2012 

Booker Report generally persist to this day.

judges’ individual sentencing practices within the same 

city.8 In that publication, the Commission concluded 

that the increasing differences in sentencing practices 

first reported at the district level in the Commission’s 

2012 Booker Report generally persist to this day, even 

within the same courthouse.

This report, the third in the series, builds directly upon 

the Commission’s Intra-City Report. As noted in that 

publication, the Commission’s ongoing analysis in this 

area directly relates to a key goal of the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984: reducing unwarranted sentencing 

disparities that existed in the federal judicial system.9

In particular, the Act was the result of a widespread 

bipartisan concern that such disparities existed both 

regionally (e.g., differences among the districts) and 

within the same courthouse.10 Having analyzed the 

differences within the same courthouse in its Intra-City 

Report, this report now turns to examining regional 

differences since Booker. 
7

The Commission’s Inter-District Analysis

KEY FINDINGS

KEY FINDINGS

Building on its Intra-City study, the Commission’s current analysis measured districts’ average 

percent differences from the guideline minimums in relation to other districts during three 

periods between 2005 and 2017.11 While the extent of those differences vary depending on the 

specific primary guideline, the overarching trends indicate that, consistent with the findings of 

the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report, sentencing outcomes continue to depend at least in part 

upon the district in which the defendant is sentenced.

Variations in sentencing practices across districts increased in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision 

in Booker. These inter-district sentencing differences have persisted in the 13 years after Booker and six years 

after the Commission’s 2012 analysis. 

Sentencing differences increased for each of the four major offense types analyzed (fraud, drug trafficking, 

firearms related offenses, and illegal reentry) during the Gall Period. This trend continued for some, but not all, 

of the four offense types in the six years following the last period analyzed in the Commission’s 2012 Booker

Report. 

Guideline amendments intended to promote uniformity by addressing judicial concerns regarding severity have 

had an inconsistent impact on inter-district disparity. Specifically, despite multiple significant revisions to the 

drug trafficking guideline, including the two-level reduction of the base offense level for all drugs, districts 

increasingly diverged in their sentencing practices for drug trafficking offenders. However, the comprehensive 

amendment to the illegal reentry guideline contributed to increasing uniformity in sentencing practices in the 

Post-Report Period.

Certain districts have consistently sentenced more—or less—severely in relation to the guideline minimums than 

other districts, both over time and across offense type. For each primary guideline analyzed over time, some 

districts were consistently among the districts furthest above the average percent difference, while others were 

consistently among the furthest below. Furthermore, in this most recent Post-Report Period, some districts 

were consistently among those furthest above the average for each of the four guidelines analyzed. 

•

•

•

•
January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

8 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Congress included three 

provisions of the Sentencing 

Reform Act in response 

to its concerns about 

unwarranted sentencing 

disparities.
9

The Commission’s 2012 Study of 

Inter-District Sentencing Differences

METHODOLOGY

In response to its concern about unwarranted 

sentencing disparities, Congress included three 

provisions in the Sentencing Reform Act intended to 

reduce the extent of disparities.12 As part of those 

provisions, Congress instructed the Commission to 

pay “particular attention” to avoiding unwarranted 

sentencing disparities in creating guidelines.13 Although 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker rendered the 

guidelines advisory—thereby providing courts with 

more discretion in sentencing than under the preBooker guidelines—the Court did not invalidate those 

three provisions. Indeed, the Court specifically stated 

that it believed the post-Booker advisory guideline 

system would “promote uniformity in the sentencing 

process” and thus help avoid unwarranted sentencing 

disparities.14

In furtherance of those directives, the Commission 

has long studied variations in sentencing practices, 

including regional differences among districts. In 2012, 

the Commission examined sentencing differences 

both among districts and among judges within each of 

the 94 federal judicial districts. 

The analysis covered four time periods: 

• the Koon period (the Supreme Court’s 1996 

decision in Koon v. United States15 until the 

enactment of the PROTECT Act on April 30, 

2003);

• the PROTECT Act period (April 30, 2003 through 

the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Blakely v. 

Washington,

16 which foreshadowed the Supreme 

Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker17);

• the Booker period (January 12, 2005, through 

December 9, 2007); and 

• the Gall period (the date of the Gall and Kimbrough

decisions18 through the end of fiscal year 2011).

METHODOLOGY
10

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

range without a request from the government.19 An 

example of a box plot, taken from the 2012 Booker

Report, appears above. 

The 2012 report utilized a common statistical tool 

known as a “box plot” to depict the spread in rates 

of below range sentences as a means of analyzing 

whether, and to what extent, districts differed in how 

often they imposed sentences below the guideline 
11

METHODOLOGY

The main value of the box plot, as used in the 2012 

Booker Report, was its depiction of the size and 

position of the box over time to explore the question 

of whether districts differed in their imposition of 

non-government sponsored below range sentences, 

and whether any such differences had increased over 

time. In the graph, the top and bottom of the vertical 

lines (whiskers) showed the district with the highest 

(top) and lowest (bottom) rate of non-government 

sponsored below range sentences. The boxes, which 

provided the primary value of the graph, depicted 

the rates and variation within the middle 50 percent 

of districts that imposed such sentences. Changes in 

the height of the box’s position along the vertical axis 

over the four periods depict at a glance whether the 

rates are increasing or decreasing among the middle 

50 percent of districts, and the size of the box depicts 

the spread in rates among those districts. 

A higher box signifies that the sentencing practice 

occurred more often among the middle 50 percent 

of districts that engaged in the practice, a lower 

box signifies that the sentencing practice occurred 

less often. A smaller box means there is less spread 

(greater uniformity) among the middle 50 percent of 

districts that engaged in the practice, and a larger box 

means there is a greater spread (less uniformity). 

Using the box plots, the 2012 report analyzed 

whether districts differed in their imposition of nongovernment sponsored below range sentences, and 

whether any such differences had increased over 

time, for all offenses, as well as for several of the 

primary offense types. The study demonstrated 

that “the rates of non-government sponsored below 

range sentences [] increased in most districts.”20

Additionally, as demonstrated by the increasing size of 

the boxes on the box plots, the variation among the 

districts relating to the frequency of their use of such 

sentences also increased over time, resulting in the 

widest spread appearing in the Gall period. This trend 

indicated “that sentencing outcomes [namely, the use 

of non-government sponsored below range sentences] 

increasingly depend[ed] upon the district in which the 

defendant [was] sentenced.”21
12

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices
13

This report updates the 2012 district-level analysis both 

in terms of the time period studied and refinements 

in methodology. Specifically, this report adopts the 

methodology used in the Commission’s recent IntraCity Report. 

First, the Commission again analyzes differences 

in sentencing practices in the three periods since 

the guidelines became advisory—the Booker Period, 

Gall Period, and the six-year period following the 

publication of the 2012 Booker Report (called the 

“Post-Report Period,” using data from fiscal years 

2012–17).22 Second, this publication expands the 

scope of cases considered in the analysis to include 

those most reflective of judicial decision-making, 

while also establishing a minimum number of cases 

as a threshold for inclusion in the study. Lastly, this 

report adopts a graphical depiction of the district-level 

analysis utilizing the same bar graph visualizations set 

forth in the Commission’s intra-city analysis. 

METHODOLOGY

Refining the 2012 Study

Gall Period Post-Report Period

Jan. 12, 2005 – Dec. 9, 2007 Dec. 10, 2007 – Sept. 30, 2011

Booker Period

Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2017

METHODOLOGY
14

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Case Exclusions

METHODOLOGY

As discussed in the Commission’s Intra-City Report, 

one of the primary refinements from the 2012 study 

was the inclusion of all types of cases in which judicial 

sentencing discretion can be measured. In the 2012 

study, the Commission focused on cases in which 

courts sentenced defendants below the guideline 

range without a motion from the government by 

looking at the rate and extent of only non-government 

sponsored below range sentences. Although the rate 

of such sentences has steadily increased after Booker, 

they still only constitute approximately one-fifth of all 

sentences today. 

The current study analyzes those same cases, but 

also adds cases in which the court imposed sentences 

outside of the guideline range based on a government 

motion (with two exceptions discussed below). In 

addition, the Commission’s current analysis includes 

cases in which judges imposed sentences within or 

above the guideline range, which together constitute 

more than half of all sentences.23 The Commission’s 

consideration of these additional categories of cases 

allows for a more robust study of sentencing discretion. 

The Commission also narrowed the dataset in certain 

aspects to focus on sentencing discretion. 

EXCLUSION 1

EXCLUSION 2

The Commission excluded two categories of cases because they do not allow 

for a meaningful assessment of judges’ sentencing discretion:

Focusing on Cases in Which Meaningful Sentencing Discretion 

Can Be Measured

Cases in which a statutory mandatory minimum penalty equaled or exceeded the 

otherwise applicable guideline minimum (“mandatory minimum trumps”);24 and 

Cases in which a court departed downwardly based on a defendant’s “substantial 

assistance” to the government or as part of a “fast-track” program (insofar as such 

departures require the government to file motions requesting them and, when filed, 

the motions are almost always granted).25 These exclusions reduced the effect that 

prosecutorial charging practices could have on the Commission’s analyses in this 

report.26 
15

METHODOLOGY

The Commission excluded three additional types of cases because of 

difficulties in accurately measuring the percent difference from the guideline 

minimum in such cases:

EXCLUSION 3

EXCLUSION 4

EXCLUSION 5

Cases with one or more counts of conviction under a statute requiring a mandatory 

sentence of imprisonment to run consecutively to any sentence imposed under the 

guidelines (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c));27

Cases in which the guideline minimum was life imprisonment or cases in which a 

court varied or departed upwardly from a guideline range of a term of months to a 

life imprisonment sentence (as there is no meaningful way to measure the extent of 

a departure or variance below a life term or the extent of an upward departure or 

variance to a life term, as a life term is not a fixed term of months); and

Cases in which the guideline minimum was less than 10 months (which, after 2010, 

necessarily fell in Zones A or B of the Sentencing Table).28

The 2019 analysis 

refines the dataset 

to allow for a fuller 

study of sentencing 

discretion. 

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

PRIMARY GUIDELINES

4

CASES

340,188

YEARS 

13
16

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

sentencing differences among districts for cases 

sentenced under one of the four most commonly 

applied guidelines: §2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, 

and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen 

Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud 

and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or 

Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer 

Obligations of the United States); §2D1.1 (Unlawful 

Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking 

(Including Possession with Intent to Commit These 

Offenses; Attempt or Conspiracy)); §2K2.1 (Unlawful 

Receipt, Possession or Transportation of Firearms 

or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving 

Firearms or Ammunition); and §2L1.2 (Unlawfully 

Entering or Remaining in the United States). Together 

these case types account for nearly 70 percent of the 

total federal caseload during the time periods studied.31

In creating the datasets, the Commission identified 

972,783 cases across the nation during fiscal years 

2005 to 2017. The Commission then isolated the 

relevant cases for each guideline-specific analysis by 

limiting cases based on their primary guideline—that is, 

the guideline with the highest adjusted offense level, 

which therefore controlled the guideline calculation.32

For example, the §2B1.1 analysis includes only those 

Much like its 2012 district-level analysis, the 

Commission conducted separate analyses by primary 

guideline to compare sentencing practices across 

districts. As reflected in the Commission’s annual 

datasets, caseload composition can widely vary across 

districts.29 The variation in caseload could result in 

findings of differences in sentencing practices and 

sentencing outcomes that could be explained in part by 

differences in offense types or different prosecutorial 

practices associated with different districts. For 

example, differences in sentencing practices when 

comparing a district with a caseload composed of 

a disproportionately high number of illegal reentry 

cases (which tend to have the highest within-range 

rates of all major guideline types) to a district with 

a disproportionately high number of drug offenses 

(which tend to have lower within range rates) may be 

more indicative of generally held judicial views about 

certain offense types or guidelines than it is of varied 

use of judicial sentencing discretion.30

Recognizing the potential impact of these regional 

differences in caseload (i.e., some districts may have 

more of one type of offense than others), the analysis 

is conducted separately for each of the major offense 

types. As a result, this publication separately examines 

Analysis By Primary Guideline

METHODOLOGY
17

METHODOLOGY

cases in which §2B1.1 was the primary guideline. 

Focusing on the four primary guidelines mentioned 

above resulted in a dataset of 674,652 cases for this 

study. After excluding the five categories of cases 

identified above, along with cases for which incomplete 

sentencing documentation was submitted to the 

Commission, 345,741 of the 674,652 cases during 

fiscal years 2005 to 2017 remained for analysis.33 

Finally, for each guideline-specific analysis, the 

Commission included only those districts with a 

minimum of 50 cases sentenced under the relevant 

guideline (e.g., a district must have had at least 50 

cases in which §2L1.2 was the primary guideline to be 

included in the §2L1.2 analysis). The 50-case per period 

threshold was incorporated to make it more likely that 

the cases were representative of the district’s overall 

sentencing practices.34 An additional 5,553 cases were 

excluded as a result of this requirement—bringing the 

total number of cases in the Commission’s dataset to 

340,188 (50.4% of the 674,652 cases sentenced under 

the four guidelines identified above). 

Cases Excluded

N=334,464

§2B1.1

N=43,048

§2D1.1

N=155,089

§2K2.1

N=61,303

§2L1.2

N=80,748

Cases Analyzed

N=340,188

Offenders Sentenced Under the Four Primary Sentencing Guidelines

FY 2005-FY 2017

N=674,652
18

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Like the Commission’s city-level analysis, this districtlevel analysis focuses on the average percent 

difference between the guideline minimums and the 

sentences imposed in each case. For each case, the 

guideline minimum and the actual sentence imposed 

were determined, and a percent difference between 

the two was calculated. For example, if the guideline 

minimum in a case was 63 months and the judge 

imposed a sentence of 39 months (24 months below 

the guideline minimum), the percent difference in 

that case was -38.1 percent. Conversely, if the judge 

imposed a sentence of 87 months in a case with a 

guideline minimum of 63 months (24 months above 

the guideline minimum), the percent difference was 

38.1 percent. The percent differences for all cases 

within the district for that particular offense type were 

then added together and divided by the total number 

of cases in that district, which yielded an average, 

district-level percent difference. For some districts, the 

average percent difference was a positive percentage 

(meaning that, on average, sentences were above the 

guideline minimums), while for others it was a negative 

percentage (meaning that, on average, sentences were 

below the guideline minimums). 

The guideline minimum was chosen as the baseline for 

analysis because of the gravitational pull it tends to 

have on sentences. The Supreme Court has directed 

district courts to consider the guideline range as the 

“benchmark” and “starting point” in the post-Booker

federal sentencing process and to “remain cognizant” 

of it during all three steps of the “Booker three-step 

process” used at federal sentencing.35 In a majority 

of cases in which judges impose sentences within the 

applicable guideline range, they impose the guideline 

minimum (58.4% of cases from fiscal years 2005 

through 2017). Furthermore, in the cases analyzed 

for this report, when judges imposed a sentence 

outside of the guideline range, they departed or 

varied below the range nearly 21 times as often as 

they departed or varied above the range.36 In those 

cases with below range sentences, judges often use 

the guideline minimum as the starting point in deciding 

how far to depart or vary below the minimum. The 

guideline minimum is thus a focal point in the advisory 

guidelines system and, for that reason, the baseline for 

the Commission’s analysis. 

Measuring Judicial Discretion

METHODOLOGY
19

METHODOLOGY

The results of the Commission’s district-level analyses 

adopt the graphical depiction used in the Commission’s 

intra-city analysis. As shown in the figure above, a 

bar graph is used to analyze and compare differences 

in sentencing practices among each district studied 

(for each of the three periods). Each district with 

the 50-case minimum for a period is represented by 

a horizontal bar on the graph. The bars show the 

sentencing practices of each district in relation to the 

average of all districts in that particular analysis. The 

overall average for all analyzed districts is depicted 

by the vertical line in the middle of the bar graph. In 

this example, the average percent difference from the 

guideline minimum for all 61 districts in the study was 

-3.0 percent. This means, on average, judges in the 61 

districts collectively imposed sentences 3.0 percent 

below the guideline minimum for cases in this analysis. 

Each individual district is then represented by bars 

that are either in the positive or negative halves of 

the graph depending on the districts’ average percent 

differences in relation to the overall average. Redcolored bars represent districts whose average 

percent differences are above the overall average in 

Graphical Presentation of the Results

METHODOLOGY

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Total 

spread and 

standard 

deviation 

among 

districts 

over one 

time period.

Districts above 

the average.

Districts below 

the average.

Each district in the study 

is represented by a bar on 

the graph.

District 

Avg

-3.0%

Average percent difference for all districts included in the graph.

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
20

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

the period, while blue-colored bars represent districts 

whose average percent differences are below the 

overall average. Darker shades of each color represent 

percentages further away from the average, positive or 

negative. Each color represents a range of percentage 

differences in five percent bands (e.g., “-25.00 to 

-29.99%”). 

Each graph also contains two important datapoints 

relevant to differences in sentencing practices among 

the districts for each time period: (1) the total spread 

(also called the range)37 between the district with the 

largest positive average percent difference in relation 

to the overall average and the district with the largest 

negative average percent difference in relation to the 

average in a given time period; and (2) the standard 

deviation for all districts’ average percent differences 

in relation to the overall average for the same time 

period. 

The total spread or range measures the absolute 

percentage difference between the two districts 

at opposite ends of the bar graphs. The district 

represented by the bar with the darkest red shade 

was the farthest above the overall average, while the 

district represented by the bar with the darkest blue 

shade was the farthest below the overall average. 

The standard deviation is a separate “measure 

of spread, dispersion or variability of a group of” 

datapoints,38 measuring the overall extent of all the 

districts’ differences in sentencing practices. In the 

graphs in this publication, the standard deviation is the 

measure of the dispersion of all districts in the analysis 

from the overall average. The larger the standard 

deviation, the greater the dispersion or variability among 

the datapoints in the dataset. Appendix A contains a 

discussion of the relevance of the standard deviation to 

the Commission’s analysis. 

Bar graphs for each primary guideline are shown for all 

three time periods so that changes in the total spread 

and standard deviation from one period to the next can 

be seen. 
21

Results of the 

Cumulative Analysis

FINDINGS

Consistent with the findings of the 2012 Booker Report, 

the Commission’s updated analysis demonstrates an 

overall increase in differences in sentencing practices 

among districts since the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Booker. Using the methodology described above,39

there was an increase in total spread from 36.0 in the 

Booker Period to 49.1 in the Gall Period, as well as an 

increase in the variation (as reflected in the standard 

deviation) among all districts in the study. While 

sentencing differences persisted when comparing 

the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, the trend 

appears to have somewhat stabilized when considering 

all cases cumulatively. As reflected in the table 

above, the total spread decreased slightly from 49.1 

to 48.9, while the variation among all of the districts 

nevertheless continued to increase, with standard 

deviation increasing from 9.1 to 10.4.

FINDINGS

While this cumulative analysis is informative, it does 

not account for variation in caseload composition 

across districts, which could influence differences 

in sentencing practices. Recognizing the potential 

impact of these regional caseload differences, the 

Commission’s analyses are presented below in a series 

of graphs separately analyzing sentencing differences 

among districts for offenders sentenced under one of 

the four most commonly applied guidelines: USSG 

§§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 2K2.1, and 2L1.2.40 For each 

primary guideline, bar charts are provided for each 

of the three periods with information about the 

total spreads and standard deviations. Additionally, 

a complete list of districts included in the analyses 

for each period is provided in Appendix B.41

 

Comparing Periods for All Offense Types

Booker Gall Post-Report

Total Spread 36.0 49.1 48.9

Standard Deviation 7.6 9.1 10.4

Consistent with 2012 

findings, the updated 

analysis demonstrates 

an overall increase in 

sentencing differences 

among districts 

post-Booker. 
22

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Of the 101,357 cases in which §2B1.1 was the 

primary guideline, 3,820 were excluded due to 

incomplete sentencing documentation, and 52,622 

cases sentenced were excluded under one or more 

of the five exclusionary criteria.42 An additional 1,867 

cases were excluded because they were handled in 

districts that did not meet the minimum 50-case per 

Offenders Sentenced Under §2B1.1

OVERVIEW

period requirement for inclusion in the Commission’s 

analysis—bringing the total number of cases in the 

§2B1.1 analysis to 43,048 (7,813 in the Booker Period; 

12,864 in the Gall Period; and 22,371 in the PostReport Period).

Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property 

Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit 

Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States

The Commission’s §2B1.1 analysis demonstrates a slow but consistent increase 

in differences in sentencing practices among districts.

101,357

Federal Offenders Sentenced Under §2B1.1 

FY05 - FY17 

Incomplete Documentation

(n=3,820)

50-Case Threshold Not Met

(n=1,867)

97,537

The Five Methodology Exclusions

(n=52,622)

44,915

Federal Offenders Included in §2B1.1 Analysis

43,048

Booker Period

7,813

Gall Period

12,864

Post-Report Period

22,371
23

The Commission’s §2B1.1 analysis shows an increase 

in both the spread and standard deviation among the 

districts over time. From the Booker Period to the 

Gall Period, the spread among districts increased from 

52.8 to 56.4, and the standard deviation increased 

from 11.2 to 11.8. Likely influenced by the growing 

number of districts included in the analysis (and 

accompanying increase in cases) during this time, 

these figures demonstrate that districts became 

increasingly different in how they sentenced §2B1.1 

offenders. The trend continued at a relatively steady 

rate from the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

with the total spread increasing from 56.4 to 58.4, and 

the standard deviation increasing from 11.8 to 12.5.

FINDINGS: §2B1.1

Results of the 

§2B1.1 Analysis

FINDINGS

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-3.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 61

Cases: 7,813

Spread: 52.8

Standard Deviation: 11.2 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-11.0

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 72

Cases: 12,864

Spread: 56.4

Standard Deviation: 11.8 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 District 

Avg

-22.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 87

Cases: 22,371

Spread: 58.4

Standard Deviation: 12.5 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
24

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Offenders Sentenced Under §2D1.1

OVERVIEW

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

to Commit These Offenses; Attempt or Conspiracy)

Of the 289,669 cases in which §2D1.1 was 

the primary guideline, 9,244 were excluded 

due to incomplete sentencing documentation, 

and 125,013 cases were excluded under one 

or more of the five exclusionary criteria.43

An additional 323 cases were excluded because they 

were handled in districts that did not meet the minimum 

50-case per period requirement for inclusion in the 

Commission’s analysis—bringing the total number of 

cases in the §2D1.1 analysis to 155,089 (36,770 in the 

Booker Period; 48,276 in the Gall Period; and 70,043 

in the Post-Report Period).44

The Commission’s §2D1.1 analysis demonstrates a slow but consistent increase 

in differences in sentencing practices among districts. The same general trend is also seen 

when individually considering drug type. 

289,669

Federal Offenders Sentenced Under §2D1.1 

FY05 - FY17 

Incomplete Documentation

(n=9,244)

50-Case Threshold Not Met

(n=323)

280,425

The Five Methodology Exclusions

(n=125,013)

155,412

Federal Offenders Included in §2D1.1 Analysis

155,089

Booker Period

36,770

Gall Period

48,276

Post-Report Period

70,043
25

FINDINGS: §2D1.1

Results of the 

§2D1.1 Analysis

FINDINGS

The Commission’s §2D1.1 analysis shows an increase 

in both the spread and standard deviation among the 

districts. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, 

the spread among districts increased from 47.9 to 51.3, 

and the standard deviation increased from 7.4 to 9.3. 

Accompanied by a growing number of cases during 

this time, these figures demonstrate that districts 

became increasingly different in how they sentenced 

§2D1.1 offenders. The trend continued from the 

Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, with the total 

spread increasing from 51.3 to 57.3, and the standard 

deviation increasing from 9.3 to 11.2.

This overall trend of increasing sentencing differences 

has continued despite several significant revisions to 

the drug trafficking guidelines intended to promote 

uniformity by addressing judicial concerns regarding 

severity. First, in 2007, due to its ongoing concern 

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

ratio, the Commission lowered the guideline for crack 

cocaine offenses.45 This reduction resulted in base 

offense levels for crack cocaine corresponding to 

guideline ranges that included, rather than exceeded, 

the statutory mandatory minimum penalties.46

Subsequently, the Commission made the reduction 

retroactive, allowing courts to reduce the sentences 

of incarcerated offenders whose sentences had been 

based on the higher guideline.47 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-4.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 88

Cases: 36,770

Spread: 47.9

Standard Deviation: 7.4 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-9.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 91

Cases: 48,276

Spread: 51.3

Standard Deviation: 9.3 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-16.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 92

Cases: 70,043

Spread: 57.3

Standard Deviation: 11.2 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
26

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Consistent with previous Commission 

recommendations, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine 

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

quantity ratio and eliminated the mandatory minimum 

sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.48

Although the statutory changes were not made 

retroactive by Congress until after the periods studied 

in this report,49 the Commission did implement the Fair 

Sentencing Act’s new penalties in the guidelines and 

subsequently made the guideline changes retroactive.50

Most recently, in 2014, after the Fair Sentencing Act 

was fully implemented, the Commission separately 

reduced the drug guidelines for all drugs, including 

crack cocaine, by two levels, and made this change 

retroactive.51 In promulgating this amendment, the 

Commission determined that “changes in the law 

and recent experience with similar reductions in base 

offense levels for crack cocaine offenses indicate that 

setting the base offense levels above the mandatory 

minimum penalties is no longer necessary to provide 

adequate incentives to plead guilty or otherwise 

cooperate with authorities.”52 The Commission also 

conducted significant data analyses, including analysis 

that showed that the 2-level change in the guidelines 

resulted in average guideline minimums that were more 

closely aligned with the average sentence imposed 

and therefore were reflective of judicial sentencing 

practices before the amendment.53

Gall Period Post-Report Period

Jan. 12, 2005 – Dec. 9, 2007 Dec. 10, 2007 – Sept. 30, 2011

Booker Period

Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2017

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment (Retroactive)

2014 Drug Guideline Amendment (Retroactive)

2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment (Retroactive)
27

FINDINGS: §2D1.1

These significant changes have not reversed the slow 

increase in variations among the districts in relation 

to sentencing practices for drug trafficking offenders. 

Additionally, the same trends appear when considering 

individual drug type. As reflected in the table above, 

the variation among districts (as depicted by the 

standard deviation) steadily increased from Booker to 

Gall and then again in the Post-Report Period. The 

same trend is also seen when considering total spread, 

with the single exception of a slight decrease in the 

spread from Gall to Post-Report in cases in which 

methamphetamine was the primary drug. Appendix 

D contains a graphical presentation of the analysis for 

each primary drug type. 

 

Heroin cases saw the largest increase in both spread 

and standard deviation from the Gall Period to the 

Post-Report Period, which is unsurprising given the 

significant increase in the number of districts that met 

the 50-case threshold for inclusion in the analysis 

(jumping from 20 in the Gall Period to 48 in the PostReport Period). Also notable is the continued trend 

in crack cocaine cases. While many of the guideline 

revisions discussed above were specifically addressed 

toward crack offenders, differences in sentencing 

practices relating to sentencing of those offenders 

has increased in each period, with the total spread 

increasing from 34.1 to 37.6 and then to 55.1 and 

standard deviation increasing from 7.6 to 9.9 to 12.9.

Drug-Specific Analysis

Booker Gall Post-Report

Total 

Spread

Standard 

Deviation

Total 

Spread

Standard 

Deviation

Total 

Spread

Standard 

Deviation

Powder Cocaine 32.9 6.2 47.6 9.4 61.1 12.4

Crack Cocaine 34.1 7.6 37.6 9.9 55.1 12.9

Heroin 32.3 8.4 47.2 11.0 80.9 18.3

Marijuana 41.9 9.8 57.4 13.2 59.9 15.0

Methamphetamine 35.6 6.0 54.8 9.1 52.4 10.3

All Other Drugs 27.9 11.4 33.3 10.6 59.6 15.0
28

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Offenders Sentenced Under §2K2.1

OVERVIEW

Unlawful Receipt, Possession or Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited 

Transactions Involving Firearms or Ammunition

for inclusion in the Commission’s analysis—bringing 

the total number of cases in the §2K2.1 analysis to 

61,303 (14,158 in the Booker Period; 17,898 in the 

Gall Period; and 29,247 in the Post-Report Period).55

Of the 78,907 cases in which §2K2.1 was the primary 

guideline, 1,614 were excluded due to incomplete 

sentencing documentation, and 15,448 cases were 

excluded under one or more of the five exclusionary 

criteria.54 An additional 542 cases were excluded 

because they were handled in districts that did not 

meet the minimum 50-case per period requirement 

The Commission’s §2K2.1 analysis demonstrates increasing variation in sentencing practices 

among districts from the Gall to the Post-Report periods, even though the difference between 

the two districts furthest from the average decreased during that same time. 

78,907

Federal Offenders Sentenced Under §2K2.1 

FY05 - FY17 

Incomplete Documentation

(n=1,614)

50-Case Threshold Not Met

(n=542)

77,293

The Five Methodology Exclusions

(n=15,448)

61,845

Federal Offenders Included in §2K2.1 Analysis

61,303

Booker Period

14,158

Gall Period

17,898

Post-Report Period

29,247
29

Results of the 

§2K2.1 Analysis

FINDINGS

The Commission’s §2K2.1 analysis shows an overall 

increase in both the spread and standard deviation 

among the districts. From the Booker Period to the 

Gall Period, the spread among districts increased from 

46.9 to 57.5, and the standard deviation increased 

from 8.3 to 9.6. Accompanied by a growing number 

of cases during this time, these figures demonstrate 

that districts became increasingly different in how 

they sentence in §2K2.1 offenders. The total spread, 

however, did decrease in the most recent period, 

from 57.5 in the Gall Period to 55.2 in the PostReport Period. Nevertheless, the variation among all 

of the districts in the study grew, as represented by 

the increased standard deviation (9.6 to 10.0).

FINDINGS: §2K2.1

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

1.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 84

Cases: 14,158

Spread: 46.9

Standard Deviation: 8.3 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-4.2

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 89

Cases: 17,898

Spread: 57.5

Standard Deviation: 9.6 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-7.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 90

Cases: 29,247

Spread: 55.2

Standard Deviation: 10.0 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
30

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Offenders Sentenced Under §2L1.2

OVERVIEW

Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States

meet the minimum 50-case per period requirement 

for inclusion in the Commission’s analysis—bringing the 

total number of cases in the §2L1.2 analysis to 80,748 

(14,654 in the Booker Period; 26,882 in the Gall Period; 

and 39,212 in the Post-Report Period).

Of the 204,719 cases in which §2L1.2 was the primary 

guideline, 2,976 were excluded due to incomplete 

sentencing documentation, and 118,174 cases were 

excluded under one or more of the five exclusionary 

criteria.56 An additional 2,821 cases were excluded 

because they were handled in districts that did not 

The Commission’s §2L1.2 analysis demonstrates that, following substantial increases in 

sentencing practices among districts in the earlier periods, 

sentencing practices have become more uniform in the Post-Report period. 

204,719

Federal Offenders Sentenced Under §2L1.2 

FY05 - FY17 

Incomplete Documentation

(n=2,976)

50-Case Threshold Not Met

(n=2,821)

201,743

The Five Methodology Exclusions

(n=118,174)

83,569

Federal Offenders Included in §2L1.2 Analysis

80,748

Booker Period

14,654

Gall Period

26,882

Post-Report Period

39,212
31

Results of the 

§2L1.2 Analysis

FINDINGS

When considering the various primary guidelines, 

some of the most notable trends were in the context 

of §2L1.2 cases. After a sizable increase in both 

the spread and the standard deviation in the Gall 

Period, the trend reversed when comparing district 

sentencing practices in the Post-Report Period. 

Following a 23.2-point increase in the total spread 

and 4.7-point increase in the standard deviation from 

the Booker Period to the Gall Period, both the spread 

and the standard deviation decreased in the PostReport Period, indicating that sentencing practices 

among districts have become more uniform since 

the Gall Period. While this shift may be attributable 

to several factors, the comprehensive revision of the 

illegal reentry guideline in 2016,57 which was intended 

to promote uniformity and address judicial concerns 

regarding severity, clearly had a substantial impact on 

inter-district disparity in the Post-Report Period. 

Leading up to the 2016 amendment, the Commission 

received comment and reviewed sentencing data 

indicating that certain aspects of the illegal reentry 

guideline were seen as overly severe—particularly 

the then-existing 16- and 12-level enhancements for 

certain prior felonies committed before a defendant’s 

deportation.58 The amendment addressed these 

FINDINGS: §2L1.2

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-0.8

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 44

Cases: 14,654

Spread: 52.2

Standard Deviation: 10.0 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-3.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 54

Cases: 26,882

Spread: 75.4

Standard Deviation: 14.7 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-8.1

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 58

Cases: 39,212

Spread: 58.0

Standard Deviation: 13.4 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
32

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

concerns by comprehensively restructuring the 

illegal reentry guideline to account for prior criminal 

conduct in a broader and more proportionate 

manner. Specifically, the amendment added tiered 

enhancements based on criminal conduct occurring 

before and after the defendant’s first order of 

deportation. The tiered enhancements provide for 

incremental punishment to account for the varying 

levels of culpability and risk of recidivism reflected in 

illegal reentry defendants’ prior convictions.

In the wake of the 2016 amendment, the within 

guideline range rate in illegal reentry cases has steadily 

increased to nearly 70 percent in fiscal year 2018.59

The amendment appears to have had an equal impact 

on the variation in sentencing practices in the PostReport Period. When looking only at the §2L1.2 

offenders sentenced using the post-2016 amendment 

version of the guideline (4,233 offenders of the 

39,212 §2L1.2 offenders (10.8%) in the Post-Report 

Period), there was significantly less variation among 

the districts, with a total spread of 28.8 percent and 

a standard deviation of 8.7. In fact, this represented 

the most uniform sentencing practices among all PostReport Period analyses completed for this publication. 

On the other hand, excluding the offenders sentenced 

under the revised guideline (and thus analyzing only 

those offenders sentenced under the old guideline) 

results in even greater variation among the districts, as 

reflected by increases in both total spread (from 58.0% 

to 62.0%) and standard deviation (from 13.4 to 13.7). 

Gall Period Post-Report Period

Jan. 12, 2005 – Dec. 9, 2007 Dec. 10, 2007 – Sept. 30, 2011

Booker Period

Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2017

2016 Guideline Amendment
33

Inter-District Consistency

OVERVIEW

The Commission completed further analyses to 

study whether there was consistency over time in 

which districts were furthest above or below the 

overall average percent differences for each primary 

guideline studied. In other words, were some districts 

consistently sentencing above the overall average 

percent difference over time, and, conversely, were 

other districts consistently sentencing below the 

average percent difference over time. To conduct this 

analysis, the Commission examined the ten districts 

furthest above and furthest below the overall average 

percent difference for each major offense guideline 

in each time period. In the example provided above, 

the ten districts furthest above the overall average 

percent difference in the study’s analysis of §2B1.1 

offenders are depicted by the red box, while the ten 

furthest below the overall average are depicted by the 

blue box.

Those districts furthest above and below the average 

were then plotted and compared over time. For 

example, as reflected in the figure below, plotting the 

ten districts that were furthest above the average in 

sentencing §2B1.1 offenders demonstrates that four of 

the ten districts furthest above the average remained 

consistently at the top of the graph across all three 

OVERVIEW: Inter-District Consistency

Certain districts have consistently sentenced more—or less—severely in relation to the 

guideline minimums than other districts, both over time and across offense type. 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-3.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 61

Cases: 7,813

Spread: 52.8

Standard Deviation: 11.2 

USSG §2B1.1 Offenders

Example of Districts Furthest Above and 

Below Average Percent Difference 
34

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

periods. In addition, while not in all three periods, 

several other districts were consistent across at least 

two of the periods. In the graph above, the Southern 

District of Mississippi and the Western District of 

Virginia were among the top ten districts furthest 

above the average percent difference for §2B1.1 

offenders in the Booker and Post-Report Periods, while 

the Eastern District of Arkansas was among the top 

ten districts in both the Booker and Gall Periods.

Similar consistency is seen in the other primary 

guidelines, with 40 percent of districts in both the 

§2D1.1 and §2L1.2 analyses remaining consistent 

across the periods, and 30 percent consistent across 

time in the §2K2.1 analysis. Similarly, even while not 

in all three periods, several districts were consistent 

across at least two of the periods for each of these 

primary guidelines.

Georgia South Georgia South

Georgia South

Indiana South

Georgia Middle

Georgia Middle

Georgia Middle

Mississippi South

Louisiana West Mississippi South

Louisiana West

Louisiana West

Texas North

Texas North

Texas North

Oklahoma West

Oklahoma North

Virginia West

Arkansas East Virginia West

Arkansas East

Montana

Illinois South

Louisiana Middle

Florida North

Michigan West

Iowa North

Mississippi North

Texas South

N Carolina Middle

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2B1.1 - Furthest Above the Overall Average

Louisiana Middle

Louisiana Middle

Montana

Montana

Georgia South

Georgia South Georgia South

Texas North

Texas North

Texas North

Georgia Middle

Georgia Middle

Georgia Middle

Wisconsin West

Kentucky East

Kentucky East

Kentucky East

Idaho

Louisiana East

Oklahoma North

N Carolina East

N Carolina East

Illinois South

N Carolina Middle

N Carolina Middle

Mississippi North

Texas East

Mississippi South

Iowa North

Tennessee East

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2D1.1 - Furthest Above the Overall Average
35

FINDINGS: Inter-District Consistency

There is often also consistency within a single time 

period across the different guidelines. When looking 

at the ten districts furthest above the average percent 

difference only within the Post-Report Period, the same 

districts often appear in several, if not all, of the different 

guideline analyses. For example, the Northern District 

of Texas, Northern District of Iowa, Southern District 

of Mississippi, and Middle District of North Carolina 

appear in the ten highest districts for §§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 

2K2.1 and 2L1.2. Several other districts are consistent 

in at least three primary guidelines—Southern District 

of Georgia appears in all but §2L1.2; Eastern District 

of North Carolina and Eastern District of Texas are in 

all but §2B1.1.

While there is less uniformity across time, there were 

also similar trends when looking at those districts that 

were furthest below the average percent difference. 

Louisiana East Louisiana East

Louisiana East

Louisiana Middle Louisiana Middle

Iowa North

Iowa North

Texas North

Texas North

Texas North

Louisiana West

Louisiana West

Florida North

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico

Montana

Oklahoma North Montana

Virginia East

Mississippi South Mississippi South

N Carolina East

N Carolina East

Mississippi North

Georgia South

Georgia South

Texas East

N Carolina Middle

Oklahoma East

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2K2.1 - Furthest Above the Overall Average

Texas North

Texas North

Texas North

Iowa North

Iowa North

Iowa North

Texas East

Texas East

Tennessee East Texas East

N Carolina Middle Tennessee East

N Carolina Middle

N Carolina Middle

N Carolina West

Texas West

Georgia North

Virginia East

Missouri West Missouri West

Louisiana West

Louisiana West

Louisiana East

Louisiana East

N Carolina East

N Carolina East

Arkansas East

Mississippi South

Puerto Rico

Michigan West

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2L1.2 - Furthest Above the Overall Average
36

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

As shown below, when considering the ten districts 

furthest below the average across time, 40 percent 

of districts in both the §2D1.1 and §2L1.2 analyses 

remained consistent across the periods, while 30 

percent in the §2B1.1 analysis and 20 percent in the 

§2K2.1 analysis remained consistent. When looking 

within only the Post-Report Period, only one district 

(District of Oregon) was consistently in the ten 

districts furthest below the average for all the primary 

guidelines analyzed. The Eastern District of Wisconsin, 

District of Rhode Island, and Southern District of Ohio 

appear in all but §2L1.2; the District of Utah is in all 

but §2B1.1.

Like the analysis of the top ten districts, several districts 

appear among those furthest below the average for 

multiple guidelines in the Post-Report Period. In 

fact, four appear for all but §2L1.2 (District of Rhode 

New York East New York East

New York East

South Dakota

South Dakota

South Dakota

Connecticut

California Central

New York South

Washington West

Kansas

Kansas

Illinois North Illinois North

Nebraska Illinois North

New York West

New York West

Arizona

Iowa South

New York North Iowa South

New York South

Oregon

Oregon

New Mexico

Rhode Island

Wisconsin East

Alabama South

Ohio South

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2B1.1 - Furthest Below the Overall Average

New York East

New York East

Washington West New York East

Washington West

Washington West

Vermont

Vermont

Vermont

Connecticut

Connecticut

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

New York South

New York South

New York South

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

California Central

Oregon

Oregon

Arizona

Wisconsin East

Wisconsin East

Delaware

Ohio South Ohio South

Rhode Island

California South

Utah

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2D1.1 - Furthest Below the Overall Average
37

FINDINGS: Inter-District Consistency

Island; District of Utah; Eastern District of Wisconsin; 

Southern District of Ohio), and one (District of Oregon) 

appears for each of the four guidelines. 

The analyses in this section suggest that certain 

districts have consistently sentenced more—or less—

severely in relation to the average guideline minimums 

than other districts, both over time and across offense 

type. Such consistency (again both over time and across 

offense type) is further demonstrative of underlying 

differences in sentencing practices and, therefore, at 

least partially explains the continued variation among 

districts. Such variation (particularly in the observation 

of total spread within each time period) is inherent 

when some districts were consistently among the 

districts furthest above the average percent difference, 

while others were consistently furthest below.

California Central

Vermont

Vermont

Vermont

Kentucky West

Wisconsin East Wisconsin East

Wisconsin East

Washington West

Delaware

Iowa South

Iowa South

Connecticut

Pennsylvania Middle

Colorado

Oregon

Oregon

New York South

New York West

New Hampshire

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Utah

Utah

Maine

Ohio South

South Dakota

California South

Rhode Island

Arizona

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER GALL POST-REPORT

 §2K2.1 - Furthest Below the Overall Average

GALL

Washington West

Washington West

Washington West

Nebraska

New Mexico New Mexico

New Mexico

New York North

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

California Central California Central California Central

New York South

New York South

New York South

New Jersey

Pennsylvania East

Iowa South

Iowa South

Pennsylvania Middle

New York West

New York West

Michigan East

New York East

Oregon

Oregon

Minnesota

Minnesota

Utah

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOOKER POST-REPORT

 §2L1.2 - Furthest Below the Overall Average
January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

38 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

When analyzing a 

smaller and even more 

comparable set of 

cases, the overall trends 

observed in the primary 

analysis generally 

remained consistent. 
39

MATCHED ANALYSIS

As explained above, the Commission attempted to 

limit the impact of regional variations in caseload 

by separating this inter-district study into separate 

guideline-specific analyses. However, the nature of 

the offense can vary even within the same guideline. 

For example, some districts may historically have fraud 

cases with a higher average loss or that are more likely 

to involve multiple victims. Similarly, drug type may 

vary across districts. 

Recognizing these intra-offense variations, the 

Commission also completed a matched analysis to 

test the sensitivity of sentencing differences to the 

nature of the underlying offense. As discussed in 

more detail in Appendix E, the Commission’s matched 

analysis further limits the guideline-specific datasets 

to compare similar cases over time. Specifically, the 

Commission identified the most common guideline 

outcomes (based on Criminal History Category and 

Final Offense Level) for each primary guideline in each 

of the time periods. The analysis then matched those 

common guideline outcomes from one period to the 

next to create a refined dataset, and then compared 

variation in the sentencing practices. Even when 

analyzing a smaller and even more comparable set 

of cases, the overall trends observed in the primary 

analysis generally remained consistent. 

Testing the Impact of 

Intra-Guideline Variations

MATCHED ANALYSIS
January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

40 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

Consistent with the 

Commission’s 2012 report, 

sentencing outcomes 

continue to depend at 

least in part upon the 

district in which the 

defendant is sentenced. 
41

Differences in Sentencing Practices Across Districts

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Building on its recent Intra-City study, the analyses in this report demonstrate increasing variations 

in sentencing practices across districts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Booker. 

While the extent of those differences vary depending on the specific primary guideline, the 

overarching trends in this analysis indicate that, consistent with the Commission’s findings in its 

2012 Booker Report, sentencing outcomes continue to depend at least in part upon the district in 

which the defendant is sentenced. 

Booker to Gall Periods

Sentencing differences increased (as reflected in 

both total spread and standard deviation) uniformly 

across each of the primary guidelines analyzed in this 

publication when comparing the Booker to Gall Periods, 

demonstrating that sentencing outcomes increasingly 

depended upon the district in which the defendant 

was sentenced. 

Gall to Post-Report Periods

This trend continued in the analyses of some, but not 

all primary guidelines from the Gall to the Post-Report 

Periods. The total spread and standard deviation 

continued a slow increase for both §2B1.1 and §2D1.1 

cases, while the trends were more mixed for the other 

primary guidelines studied. 

While the variation in sentencing §2K2.1 offenders 

grew slightly among the districts as represented by 

the increased standard deviation (9.6 to 10.0), the 

difference between the two districts furthest from the 

overall average decreased (total spread went from 57.5 

in the Gall Period to 55.2 in the Post-Report Period). 
42 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Gall to Post-Report Periods (cont.)

The most notable trend in the Post-Report Period 

appears in the study of §2L1.2 cases. Following a 

23.2-point increase in the total spread and 4.7-point 

increase in standard deviation from Booker to Gall, 

both the spread and the standard deviation decreased 

in the Post-Report Period, indicating that sentencing 

practices among districts have become more uniform 

since Gall. This shift is likely attributable to a number 

of factors, the most significant of which was the 

comprehensive revisions to the illegal reentry guideline 

in the 2016 Guidelines Manual.

60 

Next Steps

While this publication examines sentencing differences 

within particular guidelines, its focus remains on how 

districts compared both to each other and to overall 

average sentencing practices around the country. A 

remaining piece of the Commission’s ongoing series 

is an updated review of the continuing influence the 

guidelines have on sentences imposed as the starting 

point for all federal sentences. In its 2012 Booker

Report, the Commission found that “the guidelines have 

remained the essential starting point for all federal 

sentences and have continued to influence sentences 

significantly,”61 consistent with the requirement that 

courts begin the sentencing process by properly 

determining the applicable guideline range.62 The 

report further found, however, that while “the influence 

of the guidelines [] generally remained stable in drug 

trafficking, firearms, and immigration offenses,”63

“the influence of the guidelines [] diminished in fraud 

and child pornography offenses.”64 In furtherance 

of these studies, the Commission anticipates future 

work updating these findings using the refined 

methodologies discussed in this and its other recent 

publications. 

Differences in Sentencing Practices Across Districts

CONCLUSIONS
43

Standard Deviation Analysis

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: Standard Deviation Analysis

In addition to reporting the total spread—i.e., the 

absolute percentage difference between the two 

districts furthest from the average, positively and 

negatively—the Commission also has reported the 

standard deviation for each of the primary guidelines 

in each time period. Standard deviation is the primary 

measure of dispersion or variability of datapoints 

compared to the mean65—in the case of the interdistrict dataset, the dispersion of the districts’ average 

percent differences from the guideline minimums in 

relation to the overall average percent difference. The 

standard deviation “can be appropriately understood as 

the typical distance of a randomly selected [datapoint] 

from the mean of the distribution.”66

The standard deviation for each time period was 

calculated as follows. First, the variance—the statistical 

term, not the term referring to sentences outside of 

the guideline range after Booker—was calculated by 

summing the squared deviation from the mean for 

each district (i.e., the squared difference between each 

district’s average percent difference and the overall 

average percent difference). The total sum was divided 

by the number of districts in the particular guideline 

analysis minus one, which yielded the statistical 

variance. The standard deviation was then calculated 

by taking the square root of that variance.67
44 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices
45

District Lists

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B: District Lists

As explained in the report, the results of the 

Commission’s district-level analyses are set forth in 

bar graphs used to analyze and compare differences in 

sentencing practices among each district studied (for 

each of the three periods). On the graphs, each bar 

represents a single district and shows the sentencing 

practice of that district in relation to the average of all 

districts in that particular analysis. Red-colored bars 

represent districts whose average percent differences 

are above the overall average in the period, while bluecolored bars represent districts whose average percent 

differences are below the overall average.

A complete list of the districts included in each of the 

analyses is provided below. The overall average for 

the particular guideline and period is provided in the 

title box at the top of the page. The accompanying 

table then lists each district included in the analysis 

and how the district’s average percent difference 

from the guideline minimum compares to the overall 

average. Specifically, the difference in percentage 

points between the overall average and the district’s 

average percent difference from the guideline minimum 

is provided as a positive or negative number. Like the 

bar graphs, the comparisons for districts below the 

overall average are depicted in blue, while those above 

the overall average are depicted in red. 

For example, districts included in the Booker Period 

analysis collectively imposed sentences 3.0 percent 

below the guideline minimum for §2B1.1 offenders 

during that time period. An individual district that 

imposed sentences 2.0 percent below the guideline 

minimum for §2B1.1 offenders in the Booker Period 

would, on average, fall one percentage point above the 

overall average. That district would be depicted in red 

with a percent difference of +1.0 in the table. 
46 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2B1.1 - INTER-DISTRICT ANALYSIS

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-3.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 61

Cases: 7,813

Spread: 52.8

Standard Deviation: 11.2 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-11.0

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 72

Cases: 12,864

Spread: 56.4

Standard Deviation: 11.8 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 District 

Avg

-22.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 87

Cases: 22,371

Spread: 58.4

Standard Deviation: 12.5 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
47

 §2B1.1 - BOOKER PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Booker Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

3.0 percent below the guideline minimum for §2B1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Georgia South 151 70 +31.7 Alabama North 263 82 -0.2

Indiana South 120 66 +27.4 New Jersey 420 198 -0.6

Georgia Middle 251 59 +25.0 Maryland 234 102 -1.0

Mississippi South 263 96 +20.7 Indiana North 191 58 -1.9

Louisiana West 379 91 +15.6 Missouri East 458 215 -2.8

Texas North 510 274 +15.2 Florida Middle 499 199 -2.9

Oklahoma West 200 94 +15.1 Tennessee Middle 110 55 -3.2

Oklahoma North 155 76 +14.2 Michigan East 403 198 -4.2

Virginia West 138 60 +13.2 California North 237 113 -4.7

Arkansas East 167 79 +10.7 California East 509 194 -5.2

Virginia East 564 253 +9.0 Wisconsin East 159 74 -5.4

N Carolina West 184 68 +8.1 Minnesota 192 114 -6.3

N Carolina East 221 79 +8.0 Pennsylvania East 416 173 -6.5

Pennsylvania West 233 110 +7.2 District of Columbia 194 82 -7.3

Illinois Central 143 79 +6.2 Arizona 343 92 -7.4

Michigan West 160 75 +4.8 Colorado 235 62 -7.9

South Carolina 594 212 +3.8 Ohio South 329 105 -8.8

Florida South 933 475 +3.5 New York North 135 50 -9.0

Georgia North 345 201 +2.9 Oregon 242 108 -9.2

Utah 237 90 +2.6 Massachusetts 162 85 -10.4

Nevada 251 125 +2.4 New York West 254 58 -12.2

Pennsylvania Middle 257 91 +2.1 Nebraska 127 55 -12.5

Tennessee West 326 136 +2.1 Illinois North 581 296 -12.9

Missouri West 229 103 +1.6 Kansas 187 68 -12.9

Tennessee East 151 65 +1.5 Washington West 331 157 -13.6

Texas South 280 125 +1.2 New York South 791 391 -13.6

Texas West 518 193 +1.0 California Central 430 201 -15.1

Texas East 260 151 +0.6 Connecticut 166 68 -19.1

Kentucky East 172 69 +0.5 South Dakota 260 85 -20.1

Ohio North 511 197 +0.2 New York East 379 157 -21.1

Illinois South 119 56 +0.1

Number of Cases Number of Cases

APPENDIX B: District Lists
48 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2B1.1 - GALL PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Gall Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

11.0 percent below the guideline minimum for §2B1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Georgia South 256 153 +28.5 Colorado 250 83 -0.1

Montana 215 77 +26.6 California East 410 209 -0.1

Louisiana West 301 91 +23.0 Florida Middle 826 366 -0.5

Texas North 702 397 +22.3 W Virginia South 131 69 -0.9

Georgia Middle 263 65 +21.3 Wisconsin West 120 54 -1.1

Illinois South 126 63 +16.0 Pennsylvania Middle 381 137 -1.3

Louisiana Middle 199 60 +15.6 California North 401 182 -1.7

Arkansas East 208 94 +15.0 Missouri East 586 314 -2.3

Florida North 208 76 +14.3 Georgia North 447 227 -3.5

Michigan West 222 105 +11.8 District of Columbia 314 143 -3.9

Texas West 784 283 +11.5 Utah 307 103 -4.2

New Hampshire 139 60 +11.1 Nevada 301 125 -4.2

Mississippi South 452 147 +10.3 Missouri West 367 183 -5.2

Texas South 575 248 +8.4 Minnesota 265 144 -7.2

Indiana North 267 100 +7.9 Michigan East 511 270 -7.7

Florida South 1,858 1,094 +7.2 Nebraska 177 69 -8.6

N Carolina Middle 158 57 +6.7 California Central 1,129 544 -9.0

Tennessee West 378 181 +6.3 Kentucky West 275 81 -9.3

Louisiana East 360 118 +5.9 Pennsylvania East 521 213 -9.4

Tennessee East 220 81 +5.6 Connecticut 226 133 -9.5

Indiana South 143 91 +5.5 Ohio South 390 169 -10.3

Illinois Central 127 63 +5.3 Massachusetts 279 172 -11.0

Kentucky East 302 116 +5.2 Washington West 474 205 -11.2

California South 267 114 +5.2 Tennessee Middle 148 75 -11.2

Oklahoma West 293 142 +4.9 Wisconsin East 247 127 -11.4

N Carolina East 285 120 +3.9 Oregon 259 113 -11.4

Pennsylvania West 292 140 +3.5 Kansas 258 113 -11.5

New Jersey 700 296 +3.4 Illinois North 738 453 -13.4

Ohio North 615 216 +3.2 New York South 1,119 622 -14.8

Texas East 459 240 +2.1 New York North 157 63 -16.0

Virginia West 185 72 +1.7 Iowa South 169 81 -17.8

Alabama North 331 96 +1.7 New York West 403 129 -21.4

Virginia East 801 374 +1.6 South Dakota 308 115 -23.9

N Carolina West 283 131 +1.6 Arizona 516 134 -24.5

South Carolina 884 356 +1.3 New York East 583 289 -27.8

Alabama South 284 81 +1.1

Maryland 397 157 +0.7

Number of Cases Number of Cases
49

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2B1.1 - POST-REPORT PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Post-Report Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

22.0 percent below the guideline minimum for §2B1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Texas North 996 597 +29.7 California North 557 306 -0.9

Iowa North 148 58 +24.4 Connecticut 374 232 -1.9

Mississippi North 186 84 +23.0 Missouri West 653 383 -1.9

Georgia South 422 222 +22.9 California Central 1,665 933 -2.5

Mississippi South 364 183 +22.3 New York North 244 97 -2.5

Georgia Middle 351 128 +16.9 District of Columbia 310 160 -2.7

Texas South 899 470 +15.9 Florida Middle 1,636 773 -2.9

N Carolina Middle 224 88 +14.6 Vermont 120 76 -3.3

Louisiana West 375 179 +14.6 Missouri East 883 508 -3.7

Virginia West 375 146 +14.1 Nevada 506 260 -4.1

Arkansas West 164 81 +13.9 Montana 232 105 -4.5

W Virginia South 110 53 +12.9 Oklahoma West 336 222 -5.0

Illinois South 318 143 +12.7 Indiana South 391 224 -5.3

Florida South 3,138 1,632 +11.4 Minnesota 473 208 -5.4

New Hampshire 147 77 +10.4 New York West 452 170 -6.6

Arkansas East 262 133 +10.3 California South 498 198 -7.3

Kentucky East 379 195 +10.1 Nebraska 428 148 -8.5

Hawaii 191 86 +9.4 Puerto Rico 489 101 -10.3

Michigan West 408 199 +9.3 Michigan East 944 535 -11.6

Maine 177 76 +7.5 Washington West 536 288 -11.8

N Carolina East 377 181 +7.4 Kansas 410 166 -12.4

Tennessee East 319 115 +7.3 Wisconsin West 142 86 -12.9

Colorado 330 138 +7.2 Louisiana Middle 276 117 -13.2

Alabama North 478 149 +7.1 New York South 1,930 1,152 -13.6

Alaska 117 60 +6.9 Tennessee Middle 206 138 -15.2

California East 711 399 +6.6 Arizona 531 255 -15.6

South Carolina 943 440 +6.5 Massachusetts 481 294 -15.9

Ohio North 891 340 +6.1 Utah 278 152 -15.9

Georgia North 703 398 +5.8 Ohio South 485 264 -16.8

Virginia East 1,030 594 +5.8 Illinois North 1,315 885 -17.0

Pennsylvania Middle 381 159 +5.7 Oregon 351 149 -17.9

Washington East 306 76 +5.2 Alabama South 460 150 -18.0

Illinois Central 222 130 +5.1 Iowa South 193 127 -19.7

N Carolina West 453 234 +5.0 New York East 760 435 -21.6

Texas East 645 372 +4.9 Wisconsin East 235 149 -25.5

Tennessee West 429 236 +4.8 Rhode Island 124 68 -25.9

Idaho 203 71 +4.5 New Mexico 238 99 -26.4

Kentucky West 280 125 +4.4 South Dakota 464 169 -28.7

Florida North 386 143 +4.1

Indiana North 334 153 +3.9

Texas West 1,169 432 +3.8

Pennsylvania West 434 220 +2.3

New Jersey 983 478 +2.3

Oklahoma North 217 86 +2.2

W Virginia North 137 66 +1.4

Alabama Middle 324 100 +0.9

Maryland 793 298 +0.8

Louisiana East 414 192 +0.4

Pennsylvania East 958 374 +0.3

Number of Cases Number of Cases
50 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2D1.1 - INTER-DISTRICT ANALYSIS

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-4.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 88

Cases: 36,770

Spread: 47.9

Standard Deviation: 7.4 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-9.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 91

Cases: 48,276

Spread: 51.3

Standard Deviation: 9.3 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-16.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 92

Cases: 70,043

Spread: 57.3

Standard Deviation: 11.2 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
51

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2D1.1 - BOOKER PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Booker Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

4.1 percent below the guideline minimum for §2D1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Louisiana Middle 136 52 +27.5 Indiana South 446 232 -0.1

Montana 342 142 +16.9 Tennessee West 432 202 -0.1

Georgia South 300 217 +13.2 Ohio North 1,004 458 -0.1

Texas North 865 542 +12.6 Missouri West 876 433 -0.2

Georgia Middle 447 236 +11.6 California East 723 434 -0.3

Wisconsin West 258 222 +10.6 Nebraska 1,161 839 -0.4

Kentucky East 699 184 +9.5 Nevada 360 265 -0.8

Idaho 197 52 +8.4 Arkansas East 317 183 -1.1

Louisiana East 418 230 +7.9 Colorado 421 147 -1.1

Oklahoma North 153 55 +6.9 Pennsylvania Middle 727 289 -1.7

Puerto Rico 793 480 +6.7 Kentucky West 377 157 -1.8

Virginia East 1,572 1,047 +6.4 Alabama South 464 218 -1.8

Maine 196 88 +6.3 New Jersey 889 426 -2.1

W Virginia South 453 329 +6.2 Tennessee Middle 252 127 -2.5

Mississippi South 336 240 +5.8 Michigan East 799 349 -2.8

Oklahoma East 96 56 +5.6 Alaska 141 78 -3.1

Florida North 536 185 +5.6 Washington East 291 177 -3.2

Virginia West 1,080 483 +5.4 Illinois North 913 525 -3.6

N Carolina East 646 201 +5.3 Minnesota 762 387 -4.2

Tennessee East 772 301 +5.2 New York North 466 177 -4.5

N Carolina Middle 494 249 +5.1 Maryland 701 289 -4.6

Illinois South 527 330 +5.1 New Hampshire 268 147 -4.9

Texas East 1,197 819 +5.0 New Mexico 1,779 958 -4.9

Texas West 5,906 4,371 +4.9 Illinois Central 465 203 -5.0

Michigan West 431 228 +4.3 Utah 539 352 -5.1

Arkansas West 135 61 +4.0 Ohio South 705 209 -5.2

N Carolina West 978 377 +3.7 Iowa South 491 198 -5.4

South Dakota 389 237 +3.7 Wisconsin East 469 259 -5.6

Iowa North 395 206 +3.5 Hawaii 610 223 -5.7

W Virginia North 496 391 +3.4 Rhode Island 136 91 -5.7

Louisiana West 449 225 +3.1 California North 398 250 -6.1

South Carolina 1,184 564 +2.6 Mississippi North 225 98 -6.5

Indiana North 376 188 +2.6 Oklahoma West 180 131 -6.6

Texas South 4,160 2,902 +2.3 California South 2,501 618 -7.0

New York West 711 220 +2.2 Pennsylvania East 609 210 -7.4

Florida Middle 2,432 1,269 +1.4 Arizona 2,990 871 -7.5

Missouri East 1,238 725 +1.1 Oregon 411 236 -8.0

Wyoming 405 239 +1.0 California Central 621 389 -8.6

Georgia North 541 313 +0.9 Massachusetts 549 346 -8.9

Alabama North 433 109 +0.9 New York South 1,817 1,120 -9.8

Pennsylvania West 429 251 +0.8 District of Columbia 499 221 -13.2

Florida South 2,244 1,518 +0.4 Connecticut 507 288 -15.1

Kansas 709 398 +0.0 Vermont 238 101 -16.1

Washington West 812 503 -17.0

New York East 1,329 824 -20.4

Number of Cases Number of Cases
52 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2D1.1 - GALL PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Gall Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

9.9 percent below the guideline minimum for §2D1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Georgia Middle 403 227 +16.9 Illinois Central 660 240 -0.1

Georgia South 609 405 +15.6 Wisconsin West 281 221 -0.8

Louisiana Middle 176 65 +15.0 New Jersey 921 466 -0.9

N Carolina East 1,060 303 +13.5 Kentucky West 584 261 -1.7

Montana 401 182 +13.0 Colorado 421 173 -1.7

Texas North 1,035 637 +12.2 Oklahoma West 300 190 -1.9

Illinois South 561 362 +11.1 Alaska 242 136 -2.1

Kentucky East 1,120 278 +10.7 New York West 968 261 -2.3

N Carolina Middle 630 253 +10.1 Missouri East 1,231 687 -2.8

Mississippi North 211 82 +10.0 Maryland 861 422 -3.2

Mississippi South 318 233 +9.8 Utah 549 383 -3.6

N Carolina West 906 344 +9.3 Michigan East 989 537 -4.1

Texas East 1,662 1,120 +8.6 New Mexico 2,188 1,053 -4.5

Arkansas West 264 137 +8.3 Washington East 421 294 -4.7

Texas West 8,614 6,122 +8.3 Pennsylvania West 602 321 -4.8

Indiana South 536 279 +8.1 Hawaii 398 173 -6.8

Florida North 527 214 +8.1 Pennsylvania East 986 342 -7.1

Louisiana West 351 160 +8.1 California North 653 456 -7.5

Texas South 5,597 3,984 +7.8 California Central 1,582 1,042 -8.3

South Dakota 381 264 +7.4 Oregon 604 328 -8.4

Alabama Middle 296 98 +6.6 Minnesota 985 493 -8.6

Louisiana East 558 270 +6.1 Illinois North 1,113 691 -8.6

Puerto Rico 656 387 +5.9 New York North 665 297 -9.4

Arizona 4,733 2,424 +5.7 California South 4,090 1,021 -9.5

Tennessee East 1,454 603 +5.3 New Hampshire 357 196 -10.6

Virginia East 1,704 1,094 +5.3 Rhode Island 206 141 -11.0

Nevada 355 267 +4.9 Ohio South 935 322 -11.0

Ohio North 751 301 +4.5 Delaware 119 54 -11.4

Oklahoma North 205 85 +4.4 District of Columbia 583 276 -12.4

South Carolina 1,694 710 +4.3 Washington West 894 610 -14.7

California East 1,096 639 +4.2 Connecticut 716 478 -15.8

Oklahoma East 99 58 +4.1 Massachusetts 694 476 -16.8

Iowa North 491 208 +4.0 New York South 2,015 1,308 -18.6

Maine 277 98 +3.8 New York East 1,753 1,060 -22.2

Idaho 387 122 +3.8 Wisconsin East 833 416 -27.4

Arkansas East 522 322 +3.4 Vermont 289 177 -34.5

Iowa South 728 298 +3.3

Florida South 2,505 1,753 +3.2

Georgia North 700 406 +2.6

Tennessee West 732 327 +2.5

Michigan West 523 274 +2.5

Alabama North 425 131 +2.4

Nebraska 1,098 774 +2.4

Alabama South 689 310 +2.3

Florida Middle 2,442 1,211 +1.9

Indiana North 591 285 +1.7

Virginia West 872 423 +1.7

Pennsylvania Middle 817 429 +1.4

Missouri West 861 391 +1.0

Tennessee Middle 299 149 +0.9

North Dakota 277 55 +0.5

Kansas 1,003 518 +0.5

Wyoming 586 326 +0.4

W Virginia North 631 454 +0.3

W Virginia South 554 423 +0.1

Number of Cases Number of Cases
53

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2D1.1 - POST-REPORT PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Post-Report Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

16.3 percent below the guideline minimum for §2D1.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

N Carolina East 1,399 526 +23.9 Arizona 7,806 4,018 -0.4

Georgia South 670 455 +22.6 Pennsylvania West 1,054 585 -0.6

N Carolina Middle 638 358 +18.4 Montana 753 402 -0.7

Kentucky East 1,646 1,007 +16.5 New Jersey 1,112 624 -0.8

Georgia Middle 736 473 +15.6 Tennessee West 1,137 628 -0.8

Texas East 2,553 1,878 +15.2 Florida North 517 211 -1.0

Mississippi South 568 429 +14.5 Iowa South 853 492 -1.9

Texas North 3,032 1,954 +14.4 Alaska 409 236 -2.3

Iowa North 746 333 +13.7 Wyoming 435 263 -2.3

Tennessee East 2,248 961 +12.5 New York West 1,147 466 -2.4

Illinois South 749 591 +12.4 Hawaii 576 256 -3.0

Puerto Rico 1,548 880 +12.0 Maryland 1,644 873 -3.2

Virgin Islands 110 55 +11.7 Louisiana Middle 266 144 -3.6

Virginia West 1,141 641 +11.7 Kansas 1,214 672 -4.5

Alabama North 589 218 +10.7 Michigan East 1,250 679 -5.2

Mississippi North 290 122 +10.0 Georgia North 797 600 -5.8

N Carolina West 1,166 558 +10.0 New York North 962 448 -5.9

Texas South 6,920 4,600 +9.4 Kentucky West 630 301 -6.1

W Virginia North 812 611 +9.4 Pennsylvania East 1,102 368 -6.3

Louisiana East 711 350 +9.1 Alabama South 673 331 -6.8

New Hampshire 257 176 +8.6 Minnesota 740 490 -7.8

W Virginia South 925 712 +8.3 Delaware 172 111 -7.9

Alabama Middle 228 73 +8.2 Oklahoma North 375 175 -8.4

Texas West 9,776 6,291 +8.1 District of Columbia 703 365 -8.5

Florida Middle 3,266 1,768 +7.5 Illinois North 1,311 922 -8.8

Oklahoma East 193 103 +7.2 California North 890 627 -8.9

Arkansas West 667 410 +7.1 Oklahoma West 506 374 -9.8

Indiana North 578 283 +7.0 New Mexico 3,504 1,928 -10.1

Michigan West 677 383 +5.9 Connecticut 1,013 765 -10.7

South Dakota 523 326 +5.2 California Central 2,107 1,449 -10.7

Nevada 657 470 +5.1 Wisconsin West 270 219 -12.9

Ohio North 1,323 595 +5.0 Massachusetts 943 693 -13.1

Colorado 659 244 +4.6 Ohio South 1,238 596 -14.1

Louisiana West 528 272 +4.4 Utah 695 505 -15.4

Virginia East 1,693 1,214 +4.3 Oregon 801 480 -17.3

Florida South 3,355 2,436 +3.8 California South 7,408 1,745 -19.4

Pennsylvania Middle 906 476 +3.5 New York South 3,574 2,471 -20.8

North Dakota 641 130 +3.1 Rhode Island 263 202 -21.4

Maine 513 269 +2.6 Washington West 989 753 -21.8

Nebraska 1,333 990 +2.4 Vermont 649 417 -26.3

Tennessee Middle 445 218 +2.3 New York East 1,913 1,133 -27.5

Indiana South 819 451 +2.2 Wisconsin East 880 570 -33.4

South Carolina 1,431 740 +2.1

California East 1,667 1,082 +1.6

Missouri West 1,599 830 +1.5

Missouri East 1,125 698 +1.3

Idaho 617 240 +1.0

Illinois Central 869 393 +0.6

Arkansas East 1,134 762 +0.3

Washington East 629 421 +0.1

Number of Cases Number of Cases
54 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2K2.1 - INTER-DISTRICT ANALYSIS

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

1.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 84

Cases: 14,158

Spread: 46.9

Standard Deviation: 8.3 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-4.2

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 89

Cases: 17,898

Spread: 57.5

Standard Deviation: 9.6 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-7.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 90

Cases: 29,247

Spread: 55.2

Standard Deviation: 10.0 

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below
55

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2K2.1 - BOOKER PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Booker Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

1.1 percent above the guideline minimum for §2K2.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Louisiana East 145 133 +25.6 Illinois North 162 110 -0.2

Louisiana Middle 111 100 +22.3 Virginia West 187 117 -0.3

Iowa North 172 131 +21.7 Maine 145 96 -0.3

Texas North 283 238 +15.7 Arkansas East 141 108 -0.8

Louisiana West 162 148 +13.8 Kansas 257 221 -1.1

Florida North 122 72 +13.7 South Carolina 534 350 -1.3

Puerto Rico 93 77 +12.5 Illinois Central 135 101 -1.4

Montana 175 153 +11.7 Idaho 84 62 -1.5

Oklahoma North 146 108 +11.4 W Virginia North 115 96 -1.6

Virginia East 302 232 +11.1 Pennsylvania East 347 191 -1.8

Mississippi South 173 156 +10.1 Michigan East 242 179 -1.9

Georgia South 210 171 +8.3 Indiana North 324 244 -2.0

Texas East 328 279 +8.2 Tennessee Middle 176 146 -2.0

Wisconsin West 77 67 +7.8 Alabama South 160 135 -2.1

N Carolina Middle 270 210 +7.5 Washington East 154 125 -2.2

N Carolina West 347 271 +6.8 Georgia North 248 174 -2.4

W Virginia South 82 63 +6.0 Georgia Middle 138 107 -2.7

Tennessee East 296 206 +5.5 Ohio North 325 265 -3.0

Texas South 552 464 +5.1 Florida South 311 196 -3.1

Mississippi North 79 57 +5.0 Alaska 55 50 -3.1

Indiana South 88 62 +4.9 New York East 171 148 -3.3

Alabama North 394 297 +3.8 California East 160 142 -3.3

Hawaii 144 124 +3.7 Wyoming 162 128 -4.1

Nevada 244 221 +3.5 Tennessee West 363 264 -4.1

Michigan West 178 139 +3.5 California North 185 162 -4.2

Illinois South 112 85 +1.9 District of Columbia 179 149 -4.3

Alabama Middle 161 121 +1.9 Minnesota 131 82 -5.1

N Carolina East 448 273 +1.3 New York South 291 258 -5.3

Maryland 271 189 +1.3 New York West 210 151 -5.3

New Jersey 241 207 +1.0 Massachusetts 134 94 -5.4

Texas West 546 471 +0.9 Arizona 491 345 -5.6

New Hampshire 74 50 +0.8 New Mexico 231 189 -5.8

Missouri East 488 397 +0.7 Ohio South 214 158 -5.8

Missouri West 698 571 +0.2 Florida Middle 313 184 -6.1

Pennsylvania West 199 149 +0.1 Kentucky East 210 131 -6.1

Utah 416 358 -6.2

Nebraska 285 267 -6.9

New York North 116 72 -7.3

Oregon 196 161 -7.7

Colorado 215 168 -8.0

Pennsylvania Middle 107 58 -8.5

Connecticut 107 80 -8.6

Iowa South 138 111 -10.5

Delaware 66 55 -10.7

Washington West 147 112 -11.3

Wisconsin East 154 120 -12.8

Kentucky West 99 72 -13.7

Vermont 74 52 -16.9

California Central 132 122 -21.3

Number of Cases Number of Cases
56 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2K2.1 - GALL PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Gall Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

4.2 percent below the guideline minimum for §2K2.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Louisiana East 146 124 +27.5 California East 202 182 -0.3

Louisiana Middle 122 105 +20.7 Missouri East 614 500 -0.6

Louisiana West 140 115 +20.4 Georgia Middle 141 115 -0.9

Puerto Rico 116 95 +18.6 Idaho 132 101 -1.1

Texas North 342 295 +16.6 Minnesota 135 81 -1.1

Mississippi South 138 124 +15.8 Nevada 222 206 -1.5

N Carolina East 550 363 +13.7 Illinois Central 188 148 -1.5

Mississippi North 100 73 +13.2 South Carolina 702 479 -2.6

Montana 182 156 +12.2 W Virginia North 166 136 -2.6

Georgia South 358 307 +11.8 Alabama South 221 185 -2.7

Alabama North 407 330 +11.6 Indiana North 427 335 -2.9

N Carolina Middle 526 379 +11.2 Virginia West 139 76 -3.0

Illinois South 151 132 +9.3 Georgia North 282 199 -3.2

N Carolina West 274 205 +9.2 Pennsylvania East 429 236 -3.3

Iowa North 214 175 +9.1 Tennessee Middle 291 240 -3.6

Maryland 387 253 +8.2 Pennsylvania West 192 149 -4.1

Oklahoma East 67 52 +8.1 Tennessee West 609 457 -4.1

Illinois North 147 104 +7.5 Pennsylvania Middle 101 65 -4.2

Oklahoma West 167 132 +7.2 Washington West 202 175 -4.3

Texas East 353 317 +7.0 Wyoming 156 116 -4.4

Virginia East 391 319 +6.9 Arkansas West 86 78 -4.6

New Jersey 395 326 +6.9 Kansas 365 304 -5.3

Tennessee East 455 345 +6.0 Kentucky East 273 167 -5.8

Michigan West 221 162 +4.9 Nebraska 273 244 -6.9

Alabama Middle 145 105 +4.8 New Mexico 305 252 -6.9

Ohio North 432 347 +4.7 California Central 210 195 -7.5

Missouri West 693 574 +4.1 Rhode Island 69 58 -7.6

Texas South 685 565 +3.6 Delaware 142 130 -8.0

Texas West 775 648 +3.1 Arkansas East 168 132 -8.2

Florida North 151 107 +2.7 Massachusetts 198 145 -8.5

California North 212 204 +2.7 Kentucky West 111 73 -8.6

Connecticut 160 134 +2.5 Arizona 454 368 -9.3

New York East 194 173 +2.5 Ohio South 240 179 -9.6

Michigan East 357 276 +1.4 California South 137 111 -9.9

W Virginia South 132 121 +1.4 South Dakota 105 78 -10.0

Florida South 448 305 +1.4 Maine 143 86 -10.3

Washington East 159 136 +1.1 Utah 390 360 -11.0

Wisconsin West 72 56 +1.1 North Dakota 81 57 -12.0

New York North 110 73 +0.9 New Hampshire 77 53 -12.1

Colorado 262 221 +0.9 New York West 158 114 -13.4

Indiana South 80 53 +0.8 New York South 286 246 -16.0

Alaska 62 57 +0.7 Wisconsin East 276 231 -16.1

Oklahoma North 164 132 +0.4 Iowa South 261 212 -16.8

Florida Middle 495 304 +0.1 Oregon 236 190 -18.0

Vermont 99 75 -30.0

Number of Cases Number of Cases
57

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2K2.1 - POST-REPORT PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Post-Report Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

7.3 percent below the guideline minimum for §2K2.1 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Puerto Rico 1,035 963 +27.4 Colorado 462 402 -0.3

Iowa North 355 299 +21.1 W Virginia North 242 212 -0.5

Louisiana East 136 108 +20.3 Louisiana West 108 88 -1.1

Texas North 887 766 +19.8 Pennsylvania West 231 157 -1.5

N Carolina East 684 533 +17.1 Michigan East 880 741 -1.6

Mississippi South 183 170 +16.1 Indiana North 564 473 -2.4

Texas East 497 456 +15.7 Idaho 188 140 -3.0

Georgia South 468 378 +15.3 Alabama South 475 419 -3.1

N Carolina Middle 736 634 +13.9 Montana 281 257 -3.5

Oklahoma East 130 108 +12.3 Pennsylvania East 392 218 -3.9

Missouri West 1,119 963 +11.1 Oklahoma West 219 169 -4.3

Louisiana Middle 172 144 +9.1 Alaska 141 126 -4.3

Alabama North 637 526 +8.2 Florida Middle 946 589 -4.5

Tennessee East 796 649 +8.2 Tennessee Middle 245 189 -4.8

Virginia East 444 384 +7.7 Connecticut 225 176 -5.1

Illinois Central 266 221 +7.3 Massachusetts 301 225 -6.0

Washington East 242 215 +7.0 Oklahoma North 168 133 -6.2

California East 402 352 +6.8 Maine 155 102 -6.6

Illinois South 359 320 +6.7 North Dakota 153 104 -7.0

Maryland 534 398 +6.3 Delaware 91 78 -7.5

N Carolina West 496 420 +6.1 New Mexico 567 482 -7.9

Kentucky East 216 183 +6.0 Pennsylvania Middle 110 77 -8.4

South Carolina 559 435 +5.9 Washington West 364 322 -8.8

Georgia Middle 214 178 +5.8 Kansas 624 558 -9.4

Mississippi North 140 111 +5.8 Nebraska 271 245 -9.6

Michigan West 246 189 +5.2 New York South 492 449 -9.6

W Virginia South 160 149 +5.0 California Central 295 261 -9.7

Minnesota 278 185 +4.2 Wisconsin West 98 80 -10.0

Texas South 1,169 968 +4.1 Kentucky West 195 149 -10.4

New Jersey 451 392 +3.9 Iowa South 374 322 -10.9

Illinois North 319 262 +3.7 Wyoming 173 154 -11.4

Florida South 906 624 +3.6 New Hampshire 106 71 -12.2

Florida North 287 194 +3.6 Arizona 805 652 -12.4

Missouri East 918 778 +3.5 Utah 460 422 -12.5

New York West 191 137 +2.8 Rhode Island 121 111 -13.1

Arkansas West 170 141 +2.6 California South 203 163 -14.1

Ohio North 714 562 +2.4 South Dakota 196 169 -14.6

District of Columbia 80 66 +2.4 Ohio South 343 297 -14.7

Nevada 498 464 +2.2 Oregon 484 404 -17.1

Arkansas East 257 213 +2.1 Vermont 86 64 -26.2

New York East 171 151 +2.1 Wisconsin East 334 288 -27.9

California North 485 462 +2.0

Alabama Middle 151 131 +1.8

New York North 142 107 +1.4

Texas West 1,333 1,148 +1.3

Virginia West 150 102 +0.7

Georgia North 371 311 +0.4

Indiana South 331 259 +0.4

Tennessee West 756 600 +0.0

Number of Cases Number of Cases
58 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

 §2L1.2 - INTER-DISTRICT ANALYSIS

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-0.8

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 44

Cases: 14,654

Spread: 52.2

Standard Deviation: 10.0 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-3.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 54

Cases: 26,882

Spread: 75.4

Standard Deviation: 14.7 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-8.1

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 58

Cases: 39,212

Spread: 58.0

Standard Deviation: 13.4 
59

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2L1.2 - BOOKER PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Booker Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

0.8 percent below the guideline minimum for §2L1.2 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Texas North 361 318 +33.1 New York East 141 130 -0.1

Iowa North 139 67 +26.1 Arkansas West 94 74 -0.3

Texas East 173 125 +14.8 California South 736 714 -0.3

Tennessee East 60 55 +12.0 Michigan East 69 57 -0.6

N Carolina Middle 103 99 +9.5 Utah 592 288 -1.5

N Carolina West 106 75 +6.7 Colorado 324 283 -2.2

Texas West 4,446 3,107 +6.4 Washington East 276 156 -3.9

Georgia North 113 103 +6.1 New York West 92 55 -4.6

Virginia East 114 78 +4.8 California North 142 113 -5.0

Missouri West 99 79 +4.4 Illinois North 133 129 -5.7

Nevada 178 161 +4.3 Oregon 117 81 -6.4

Idaho 173 59 +4.1 Iowa South 102 80 -7.1

Florida Middle 512 242 +3.3 Pennsylvania East 102 88 -7.3

Puerto Rico 142 107 +2.5 New Jersey 88 83 -8.6

Arizona 4,832 679 +2.5 New York South 375 352 -10.3

Tennessee Middle 57 52 +2.3 California Central 305 160 -11.4

Texas South 8,280 3,954 +2.1 Massachusetts 73 68 -11.8

Kansas 201 158 +2.0 New York North 111 53 -13.8

Florida South 309 245 +1.9 New Mexico 4,499 1,469 -14.9

Maryland 84 78 +1.5 Nebraska 169 55 -18.7

Michigan West 107 79 +1.5 Washington West 184 130 -19.1

Ohio North 66 51 +0.9

Missouri East 99 65 +0.8

Number of Cases Number of Cases
60 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

 §2L1.2 - GALL PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Gall Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

3.9 percent below the guideline minimum for §2L1.2 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Louisiana West 73 51 +54.2 Florida South 559 358 -0.4

Texas North 590 470 +40.6 Nevada 458 380 -0.4

N Carolina Middle 149 123 +22.9 California South 3,599 1,940 -0.5

Louisiana East 136 61 +21.0 New York North 278 58 -0.5

Tennessee East 87 52 +18.2 Idaho 329 122 -1.8

Texas East 264 201 +17.8 Colorado 582 525 -2.0

Iowa North 224 76 +15.7 Washington East 486 187 -3.3

N Carolina East 108 83 +11.8 Ohio North 98 72 -4.2

Arkansas East 125 56 +11.2 South Carolina 148 74 -4.3

Missouri West 154 79 +10.6 California North 541 279 -4.4

Texas West 10,719 5,376 +9.6 Pennsylvania East 230 152 -5.3

Florida Middle 1,011 448 +9.2 Illinois North 331 316 -5.7

Michigan West 292 117 +9.1 Tennessee Middle 99 96 -6.0

Virginia East 576 276 +7.3 Wyoming 287 56 -7.2

Ohio South 189 79 +5.8 New Jersey 124 118 -7.6

N Carolina West 156 119 +5.8 Utah 1,243 115 -8.8

Arkansas West 278 162 +4.7 Nebraska 246 68 -9.0

Texas South 16,831 8,396 +4.0 Iowa South 117 88 -9.1

Arizona 10,558 1,598 +3.4 Wisconsin East 71 61 -12.2

Kansas 226 177 +2.7 Massachusetts 110 95 -13.4

Oklahoma West 118 96 +1.1 Minnesota 118 111 -14.2

California East 1,189 78 +0.7 Oregon 290 202 -14.7

Georgia North 384 313 +0.4 New York East 335 278 -16.6

Maryland 158 137 +0.4 Michigan East 177 79 -17.5

California Central 1,726 203 -17.6

Washington West 373 234 -18.9

New York West 194 58 -20.3

New Mexico 7,968 1,352 -20.8

Pennsylvania Middle 146 55 -20.8

New York South 611 526 -21.2

Number of Cases Number of Cases
61

APPENDIX B: District Lists

 §2L1.2 - POST-REPORT PERIOD

On average, districts included in the Post-Report Period analysis collectively imposed sentences 

8.1 percent below the guideline minimum for §2L1.2 offenders during that time period. 

District averages are provided in relation to that overall average.

Pre- Post- % Difference from Pre- Post- % Difference from

Districts Above Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg. Districts Below Exclusions Exclusions Overall Avg.

Texas North 1,178 882 +32.9 California South 5,838 1,085 -0.2

N Carolina Middle 229 129 +30.6 Kansas 257 136 -0.6

Mississippi South 94 52 +26.0 Pennsylvania East 308 198 -0.7

Texas East 374 218 +24.0 Georgia North 422 364 -0.8

Puerto Rico 419 86 +22.9 Florida Middle 1,121 415 -1.1

Iowa North 381 113 +22.9 Washington East 318 99 -1.3

N Carolina East 204 143 +15.5 Pennsylvania Middle 205 59 -1.6

Louisiana West 102 54 +14.4 Indiana South 103 84 -2.8

Michigan West 344 157 +14.3 Virginia East 533 259 -2.8

Louisiana East 224 71 +14.0 Illinois North 400 349 -2.9

Tennessee East 135 85 +13.4 New Jersey 143 110 -3.1

Texas West 18,370 8,933 +13.1 Illinois Central 162 72 -3.4

Missouri West 101 65 +9.8 South Carolina 415 115 -4.1

California East 883 88 +8.3 Arkansas East 93 68 -4.9

Ohio South 316 113 +8.2 Alabama North 143 90 -5.6

Texas South 20,520 16,240 +5.6 New York East 315 219 -7.1

Arizona 14,932 3,224 +4.8 Colorado 765 436 -8.3

N Carolina West 389 204 +3.2 Michigan East 560 146 -8.4

Georgia Middle 227 51 +3.1 Idaho 366 118 -9.4

Arkansas West 209 96 +3.1 California North 348 201 -11.0

New York North 179 55 +3.0 Oklahoma North 197 113 -12.0

Maryland 234 149 +2.8 Tennessee Middle 99 90 -12.2

Nevada 538 262 +2.7 Ohio North 117 66 -13.7

Florida South 1,573 556 +0.7 Massachusetts 247 169 -14.2

Oklahoma West 304 234 +0.2 Minnesota 126 106 -14.6

Iowa South 213 131 -15.3

New Mexico 17,929 656 -15.9

California Central 1,262 279 -17.7

New York West 302 78 -18.5

Washington West 398 134 -19.1

Oregon 231 191 -20.6

New York South 372 226 -20.9

Utah 1,501 90 -25.1

Number of Cases Number of Cases
62 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices
63

Statistical Outliers

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C: Statistical Outliers

A statistical outlier is an “[o]bservation [in the dataset] 

that is far removed from the bulk of the data.”68 Outliers 

“may indicate faulty measurements and they may exert 

undue influence on summary statistics, such as the 

mean ....”69 Although the Commission has no concerns 

that any datapoints in the inter-district dataset are 

products of faulty measurements of any district’s 

sentencing practices, the Commission nonetheless 

has identified districts that qualify as outliers using the 

most common test for such identification—the 1.5 x 

Interquartile Range (IQR) test.70 

Using that test, the Commission identified 21 districts 

as statistical outliers out of a total 910 district-level 

sentencing practices analyzed for the four primary 

guidelines over the three periods.71 During the Booker

Period, there were 11 outlier districts; during the Gall

Period, there were seven outlier districts; and during 

the Post-Report Period, there were three outlier 

districts. 

To show the effect of statistical outliers on both the 

total spread and standard deviation measures, the 

Commission has re-calculated those two measures 

excluding the outlier districts. The results—both with 

and without the outlier district in the analysis—are 

set forth below, using a modification of the graphical 

presentation discussed earlier in this report. Outlier 

districts appear above or below a red line superimposed 

on the graph. The total spread and standard deviation 

after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses 

following the total spread and standard deviation 

before excluding the outliers. 

The Commission has identified the statistical outliers to 

allow the reader to compare the graphical presentations 

of sentencing differences among districts with and 

without the outlier districts. Nevertheless, judges 

in outlier districts imposed real sentences on real 

defendants and their sentencing practices contribute 

to the extent of differences in sentencing practices 

among districts. The Commission’s exclusion of outlier 

districts from the alternative analyses in this Appendix 

is not intended to suggest otherwise.
64 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

OUTLIERS

USSG §2B1.1 OFFENDERS

To show the effect of statistical outliers on both the 

total spread and standard deviation measures, the 

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding 

outlier districts. 

In the analysis of §2B1.1 offenders, there were three 

statistical outlier districts over the three periods. Outlier 

districts appear above or below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-3.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 61 (58)

Cases: 7,813 (7,618)

Spread: 52.8 (41.8)

Standard Deviation: 11.2 (9.4)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 District 

Avg

-11.0

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 72 

Cases: 12,864

Spread: 56.4

Standard Deviation: 11.8 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-22.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 87

Cases: 22,371

Spread: 58.4

Standard Deviation: 12.5 
65

APPENDIX C: Statistical Outliers

OUTLIERS

USSG §2D1.1 OFFENDERS

To show the effect of statistical outliers on both the 

total spread and standard deviation measures, the 

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding 

outlier districts. 

In the analysis of §2D1.1 offenders, there were six 

statistical outlier districts over the three periods. Outlier 

districts appear above or below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-4.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 88 (86)

Cases: 36,770 (35,894)

Spread: 47.9 (33.9)

Standard Deviation: 7.4 (6.5)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-9.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 91 (88)

Cases: 48,276 (46,623)

Spread: 51.3 (35.4)

Standard Deviation: 9.3 (7.8)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-16.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 92 (91)

Cases: 70,043 (69,473)

Spread: 57.3 (51.4)

Standard Deviation: 11.2 (10.6)
66 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

OUTLIERS

USSG §2K2.1 OFFENDERS

To show the effect of statistical outliers on both the 

total spread and standard deviation measures, the 

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding 

outlier districts. 

In the analysis of §2K2.1 offenders, there were eight 

statistical outlier districts over the three periods. Outlier 

districts appear above or below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

1.1

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 84 (80)

Cases: 14,158 (13,672)

Spread: 46.9 (32.5)

Standard Deviation: 8.3 (6.8)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-4.2

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 89 (87)

Cases: 17,898 (17,699)

Spread: 57.5 (38.8)

Standard Deviation: 9.6 (8.6)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-7.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 90 (88)

Cases: 29,247 (27,996)

Spread: 55.2 (47.3)

Standard Deviation: 10.0 (9.2)
67

APPENDIX C: Statistical Outliers

OUTLIERS

USSG §2L1.2 OFFENDERS

To show the effect of statistical outliers on both the 

total spread and standard deviation measures, the 

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding 

outlier districts. 

In the analysis of §2L1.2 offenders, there were four 

statistical outlier districts over the three periods. Outlier 

districts appear above or below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-0.8

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 44 (42)

Cases: 14,654 (14,269)

Spread: 52.2 (33.9)

Standard Deviation: 10.0 (7.7)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-3.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 54 (52)

Cases: 26,882 (26,361)

Spread: 75.4 (44.1)

Standard Deviation: 14.7 (11.5)

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-8.1

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 58

Cases: 39,212

Spread: 58.0

Standard Deviation: 13.4 
68 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices
69

USSG §2D1.1 Analysis 

by Drug Type

APPENDIX D

As discussed in the main text of this report, the 

Commission’s §2D1.1 analysis shows an increase in 

both the spread and standard deviation among the 

districts when cumulatively considering all drug cases. 

Specifically, both measures increased from the Booker

Period to the Gall Period, and then again from the Gall

Period to the Post-Report Period.

For purposes of further comparison, the Commission 

has also calculated the total spread and standard 

deviation of offenders sentenced under §2D1.1 by 

individual drug type. Like the cumulative analysis, the 

drug-specific analyses are provided across each of the 

three time periods to allow readers to analyze trends 

by drug type and over time. The results of these 

analyses are set forth below, using the same graphical 

presentation discussed earlier in this report. As noted 

in the report, the same general increase in sentencing 

variation among the districts is seen for nearly all drug 

types, as reflected by increasing spread and standard 

deviation over time. 

APPENDIX D: Analysis by Drug Type
70 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-3.5

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 46

Cases: 7,585

Spread: 32.9

Standard Deviation: 6.2 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-8.3

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 64

Cases: 10,748

Spread: 47.6

Standard Deviation: 9.4 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-13.4

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 58

Cases: 13,853

Spread: 61.1

Standard Deviation: 12.4 

POWDER COCAINE DRUG ANALYSIS
71

APPENDIX D: Analysis by Drug Type

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-4.9

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 56

Cases: 6,912

Spread: 34.1

Standard Deviation: 7.6 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-11.9

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 61

Cases: 8,120

Spread: 37.6

Standard Deviation: 9.9 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-14.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 54

Cases: 7,011

Spread: 55.1

Standard Deviation: 12.9 

CRACK COCAINE DRUG ANALYSIS
72 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-6.7

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 13

Cases: 1,723

Spread: 32.3

Standard Deviation: 8.4 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-12.4

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 20

Cases: 2,433

Spread: 47.2

Standard Deviation: 11.0 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-12.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 48

Cases: 7,853

Spread: 80.9

Standard Deviation: 18.3 

HEROIN DRUG ANALYSIS
73

APPENDIX D: Analysis by Drug Type

MARIJUANA DRUG ANALYSIS

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-5.2

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 22

Cases: 7,566

Spread: 41.9

Standard Deviation: 9.8 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Avg

-11.2

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 30

Cases: 12,324

Spread: 57.4

Standard Deviation: 13.2 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-20.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 33

Cases: 12,201

Spread: 59.9

Standard Deviation: 15.0 
74 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 41

Cases: 6,378

Spread: 35.6

Standard Deviation: 6.0 

District 

Avg

-4.8

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 District 

Avg

-10.6

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 44

Cases: 7,412

Spread: 54.8

Standard Deviation: 9.1 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-17.8

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 59

Cases: 19,070

Spread: 52.4

Standard Deviation: 10.3 

METHAMPHETAMINE DRUG ANALYSIS
75

APPENDIX D: Analysis by Drug Type

Legend

35% and Above

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35% and Below

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-14.0

BOOKER PERIOD _______________

Districts: 5

Cases: 368

Spread: 27.9

Standard Deviation: 11.4 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-19.2

GALL PERIOD _______________

Districts: 13

Cases: 1,216

Spread: 33.3

Standard Deviation: 10.6 

-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 District 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Avg

-27.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD _______________

Districts: 41

Cases: 4,289

Spread: 59.6

Standard Deviation: 15.0 

OTHER DRUG ANALYSIS
76 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Matched analyses were 

prepared for each primary 

guideline and across all 

time periods, demonstrating 

that the overall trends 

observed in the primary 

analysis generally remained 

consistent. 
77

Matched Analysis

APPENDIX E

The Commission measured differences in districts’ 

sentencing practices by comparing the average 

percent differences from the guideline minimums 

of cases sentenced within the district. As discussed 

in the text (p. 16), a guideline-specific analysis is 

conducted to limit the impact of regional variations in 

caseload. Therefore, the primary analyses focus on all 

offenders sentenced under a particular guideline (after 

the relevant exclusions discussed above) to explore 

sentencing differences. By utilizing the guideline 

minimum as the baseline in the analysis in its guidelinespecific analyses, district sentencing practices are 

evaluated and compared based on offenses that 

were similar in nature and where the offenders were 

sentenced under the same structure (i.e., the court 

considered the applicable guideline, and all relevant 

guideline factors, to determine the starting point of 

the sentence as required by law). 

The Commission recognizes, however, that the nature 

of the offense can also vary even within the same 

guideline. For example, some districts may historically 

have fraud cases with a higher average loss or that are 

more likely to involve victims. Because of these intraoffense variations, the Commission also completed 

a matched analysis to test the results of the primary 

analysis when comparing district-level sentencing 

practices relating to a more precisely matched subset 

of cases across time periods. That is, does an analysis 

of a smaller, more comparable set of cases (matched on 

key sentencing factors) confirm the trends observed in 

the primary analyses?

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis
78 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Matched Analysis

METHODOLOGY

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases

I 12 15 393

III 17 11 239

IV 17 10 227

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases

I 12 22 552

III 17 20 455

IV 17 15 319

IV 21 10 208

VI 21 14 345

To answer this question, the Commission utilized 

matching techniques72 to identify clusters of cases 

with the identical Criminal History Category (CHC)

and Final Offense Level (FOL) for each of the primary 

guideline types analyzed. Matching cases on these 

criteria allows for comparison of offenders with the 

same primary guideline and guideline range for each 

of the most common guideline outcomes for each 

primary guideline across the time periods. 

To be included in the analysis, each cluster had to have 

at least five districts, with each included district having 

at least 15 cases. As depicted in the example below, 

the matching program utilized by the Commission 

identified §2K2.1 cases with a CHC of I and FOL of 

12, CHC III and FOL 17, and CHC IV and FOL 17, as 

the common clusters of cases (i.e., the most common 

guideline outcomes) across districts in the Booker

Period. 

Common clusters were identified for each primary 

guideline in each period. In the below example, the 

matching program identified §2K2.1 cases with the 

following guideline calculations as the common clusters 

of cases (i.e., the most common guideline outcomes) 

across districts in the Gall Period: 
79

Once clusters were identified for each time period, the 

standard deviation was then calculated only for those 

common clusters that appeared in both periods, while 

unmatched clusters were discarded. 

In the example above, the common sentencing 

outcomes across §2K2.1 cases were identified for 

both the Booker and Gall Periods. Therefore, when 

comparing the clusters in the Booker Period to those 

in the Gall Period, there were three matched outcomes 

that appeared in both—§2K2.1 cases with a CHC 

of I and FOL of 12, CHC III and FOL 17, and CHC 

IV and FOL 17. For each matched cluster of cases, 

the standard deviation was calculated. Using the 

individual calculations for each cluster, the overall 

average standard deviation across all clusters within 

a specific time period was calculated and compared. 

In the example, averaging those individual standard 

deviations results in an overall average standard 

deviation of 9.5 for the Booker Period as compared 

to 13.2 for the Gall Period, demonstrating increasing 

variation among the districts in sentencing §2K2.1 

offenders after the Booker Period. 

The trends observed in the more limited, matched 

analysis were then compared with the results of the 

primary analysis. In the above example, the matched 

analysis demonstrated an increasing standard 

deviation from the Booker to Gall Periods. This trend 

is consistent with the primary analysis, which also 

showed increasing variation among the districts in 

sentencing practices for §2K2.1 offenders, as reflected 

in an increased standard deviation from 8.3 in the 

Booker Period to 9.6 in the Gall Period (see page 29). 

As shown in the table below, the Commission’s 

matched analysis demonstrates that the trends seen 

in the primary analysis for §2K2.1 offenders remained 

consistent (both showing an increase in standard 

deviation) when further limiting the guideline-specific 

datasets to more precisely matched cases.

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 15 393 +13.8

III 17 11 239 +7.3

IV 17 10 227 +7.3

Mean Standard Deviation = +9.5

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 22 552 +19.4

III 17 20 455 +10.7

IV 17 15 319 +9.6

Mean Standard Deviation = +13.2

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2K2.1

Primary Analysis + 1.3

Matched Analysis + 3.7
80 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

When comparing the clusters of common outcomes 

for §2B1.1 cases, there were two matched outcomes 

that appeared in both the Booker and Gall Periods—

CHC of I and FOL of 12, and CHC I and FOL 13.

Averaging the individual standard deviations for 

each common outcome results in an overall average 

standard deviation of 12.7 for the Booker Period 

compared to 17.6 for the Gall Period, demonstrating 

increasing variation among the districts in sentencing 

§2B1.1 offenders after the Booker Period. 

USSG §2B1.1 Matched Analysis

RESULTS

§2B1.1 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 20 503 +13.6

I 13 18 404 +11.7

Mean Standard Deviation = +12.7

§2B1.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 32 747 +19.1

I 13 31 785 +16.0

Mean Standard Deviation = +17.6
81

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis

When comparing the latter two periods, five matched 

outcomes appeared in both the Gall and Post-Report 

Periods. 

Averaging the individual standard deviations for each 

common outcome results in an overall average standard 

deviation of 15.0 for the Gall Period compared to 14.7 

for the Post-Report Period, demonstrating relative 

stability in variation among the districts in sentencing 

§2B1.1 offenders from the Gall Period to the PostReport Period. 

§2B1.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 32 747 +19.1

I 13 31 785 +16.0

I 15 10 233 +17.7

I 16 8 189 +12.8

I 18 7 160 +9.2

Mean Standard Deviation = +15.0

§2B1.1 Matched Analysis

Post-Report Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 45 1,293 +16.2

I 13 47 1,594 +17.3

I 15 22 577 +14.9

I 16 16 391 +13.7

I 18 22 567 +11.2

Mean Standard Deviation = +14.7

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2B1.1

Primary Analysis + 0.6 + 0.7

Matched Analysis + 4.9 - 0.3

When compared with the results of the primary 

analysis, the trends remain largely the same. Both 

the primary and the matched analysis demonstrated 

an increasing standard deviation from the Booker

to Gall Periods. The trends diverged slightly when 

considering the change from the Gall Period compared 

to the Post-Report Period, with the primary analysis 

showing a slight increase and the matched analysis 

showing a slight decrease in variation (as measured 

by standard deviation). Nevertheless, as reflected in 

the table below, the change in both the primary and 

matched analyses was relatively small and therefore 

both show general stability in the trend since Gall.
82 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

USSG §2D1.1 Matched Analysis

RESULTS

§2D1.1 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

Drug CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

Cocaine I 11-20 15 567 +9.8

Cocaine I 21-30 56 3,792 +8.2

Crack I 21-30 34 995 +9.4

Crack IV 21-30 15 330 +4.6

Crack VI 31-40 34 1,155 +11.3

Heroin I 21-30 15 1,066 +8.2

Marijuana I 11-20 20 4,004 +9.3

Marijuana I 21-30 29 1,666 +8.5

Meth I 21-30 29 968 +8.0

Mean Standard Deviation = +8.6

§2D1.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

Drug CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

Cocaine I 11-20 26 945 +16.8

Cocaine I 21-30 67 4,836 +9.9

Crack I 21-30 39 1,236 +12.2

Crack IV 21-30 16 349 +5.8

Crack VI 31-40 47 1,633 +12.9

Heroin I 21-30 24 1,274 +8.9

Marijuana I 11-20 22 6,333 +21.4

Marijuana I 21-30 34 2,392 +12.7

Meth I 21-30 30 966 +11.4

Mean Standard Deviation = +12.4

Like the other primary guidelines, drug offenders were 

matched based on Final Offense Level and Criminal 

History Category. Offenders were also matched 

based on the specific drug type. When comparing the 

clusters of common outcomes for §2D1.1 cases based 

on these factors, there were nine matched outcomes 

that appeared in both the Booker and Gall Periods.

Averaging the individual standard deviations for 

each common outcome results in an overall average 

standard deviation of 8.6 for the Booker Period 

compared to 12.4 for the Gall Period, demonstrating 

increasing variation among the districts in sentencing 

§2D1.1 offenders after the Booker Period. 
83

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis

§2D1.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

Drug CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

Cocaine I 11-20 26 945 +16.8

Cocaine I 21-30 67 4,836 +9.9

Cocaine I 31-40 24 1,454 +8.4

Crack I 21-30 39 1,236 +12.2

Crack VI 21-30 27 840 +11.5

Crack VI 31-40 47 1,633 +12.9

Heroin I 21-30 24 1,274 +8.9

Marijuana I 11-20 22 6,333 +21.4

Marijuana I 21-30 34 2,392 +12.7

Meth I 21-30 30 966 +11.4

Mean Standard Deviation = +12.6

§2D1.1 Matched Analysis

Post-Report Period

Drug CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

Cocaine I 11-20 36 1,801 +16.2

Cocaine I 21-30 57 5,749 +13.1

Cocaine I 31-40 22 2,068 +11.4

Crack I 21-30 26 673 +15.8

Crack VI 21-30 38 1,101 +13.6

Crack VI 31-40 34 905 +16.0

Heroin I 21-30 43 2,392 +14.4

Marijuana I 11-20 28 5,501 +20.0

Marijuana I 21-30 24 2,095 +16.2

Meth I 21-30 38 1,952 +12.7

Mean Standard Deviation = +14.9

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2D1.1

Primary Analysis + 1.9 + 1.9

Matched Analysis + 3.8 + 2.3

Comparing the latter two periods, ten matched 

outcomes appeared in both the Gall and Post-Report 

Periods. 

Averaging the individual standard deviations for 

each common outcome results in an overall average 

standard deviation of 12.6 for the Gall Period compared 

to 14.9 for the Post-Report Period, demonstrating a 

continuing increase in variation among the districts in 

sentencing §2D1.1 offenders from the Gall Period to 

the Post-Report Period. 

When compared with the results of the primary 

analysis, the trends are the same. Both the primary 

and the matched analysis demonstrated an increasing 

standard deviation from the Booker to Gall Periods, and 

then again from the Gall to the Post-Report Periods.
84 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

USSG §2K2.1 Matched Analysis

RESULTS

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 15 393 +13.8

III 17 11 239 +7.3

IV 17 10 227 +7.3

Mean Standard Deviation = +9.5

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 22 552 +19.4

III 17 20 455 +10.7

IV 17 15 319 +9.6

Mean Standard Deviation = +13.2

When comparing the clusters of common outcomes 

for §2K2.1 cases, there were three matched outcomes 

that appeared in both the Booker and Gall Periods.

Averaging the individual standard deviations for each 

common outcome results in an overall average standard 

deviation of 9.5 for the Booker Period compared to 13.2 

for the Gall Period, demonstrating increasing variation 

among the districts in sentencing §2K2.1 offenders 

after the Booker Period. 
85

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 22 552 +19.4

III 17 20 455 +10.7

IV 17 15 319 +9.6

IV 21 10 208 +6.1

VI 21 14 345 +6.7

Mean Standard Deviation = +10.5

§2K2.1 Matched Analysis

Post-Report Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

I 12 18 623 +25.5

III 17 33 1,055 +14.2

IV 17 32 799 +10.9

IV 21 26 599 +11.4

VI 21 24 651 +11.6

Mean Standard Deviation = +14.7

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2K2.1

Primary Analysis + 1.3 + 0.4

Matched Analysis + 3.7 + 4.2

Comparing the latter two periods, five matched 

outcomes appeared in both the Gall and Post-Report 

Periods. 

Averaging the individual standard deviations for 

each common outcome results in an overall average 

standard deviation of 10.5 for the Gall Period compared 

to 14.7 for the Post-Report Period, demonstrating a 

continuing increase in variation among the districts in 

sentencing §2K2.1 offenders from the Gall Period to 

the Post-Report Period. 

When compared with the results of the primary 

analysis, the same trends remain. Both the primary 

and the matched analysis demonstrated an increasing 

standard deviation from the Booker to Gall Periods, and 

then again from the Gall to the Post-Report Periods.
86 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

USSG §2L1.2 Matched Analysis

RESULTS

§2L1.2 Matched Analysis

Booker Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

II 21 15 969 +8.6

III 21 26 1,767 +9.2

IV 21 17 1,173 +9.4

V 21 10 593 +9.4

VI 21 13 668 +10.7

Mean Standard Deviation = +9.5

§2L1.2 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

II 21 24 1,720 +13.9

III 21 35 3,043 +9.9

IV 21 26 1,985 +12.5

V 21 15 956 +11.1

VI 21 13 830 +12.0

Mean Standard Deviation = +11.9

When comparing the clusters of common outcomes 

for §2L1.2 cases based on these factors, there were 

five matched outcomes that appeared in both the 

Booker and Gall Periods.

Averaging the individual standard deviations for each 

common outcome results in an overall average standard 

deviation of 9.5 for the Booker Period compared to 11.9 

for the Gall Period, demonstrating increasing variation 

among the districts in sentencing §2L1.2 offenders 

after the Booker Period. 
87

APPENDIX E: Matched Analysis

§2L1.2 Matched Analysis

Gall Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

II 21 24 1,720 +13.9

III 10 21 3,908 +22.3

III 21 35 3,043 +9.9

IV 10 15 2,916 +19.9

IV 21 26 1,985 +12.5

V 10 10 1,448 +25.8

Mean Standard Deviation = +17.4

§2L1.2 Matched Analysis

Post-Report Period

CHC FOL N. Districts N. Cases SD

II 21 22 2,796 +12.9

III 10 36 6,774 +14.7

III 21 33 4,148 +11.6

IV 10 19 3,747 +19.2

IV 21 20 2,189 +11.9

V 10 12 2,034 +15.1

Mean Standard Deviation = +14.2

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2L1.2

Primary Analysis + 4.7 - 1.3

Matched Analysis + 2.4 - 3.2

Comparing the latter two periods, six matched 

outcomes appeared in both the Gall and Post-Report 

Periods. 

Averaging the individual standard deviations for each 

common outcome results in an overall average standard 

deviation of 17.4 for the Gall Period compared to 14.2 

for the Post-Report Period, which was a reversal of 

the trend and indicates decreased variation among the 

districts in sentencing §2L1.2 offenders from the Gall 

Period to the Post-Report Period. 

When compared with the results of the primary 

analysis, the trends are again consistent. Both the 

primary and the matched analysis demonstrated an 

increasing standard deviation from the Booker to Gall

Periods, with a reversal of the trend from the Gall to 

the Post-Report Periods.
88 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Summary of Matched Analysis

RESULTS

This matched analysis tests whether the findings of the 

primary analysis set forth in the text of this publication 

remained consistent when further limiting the 

guideline-specific datasets to more precisely matched 

cases. That is, does an analysis of a smaller, more 

comparable set of cases (matched on key sentencing 

factors) confirm the trends observed in the primary 

analyses? 

As reflected in the summary table above, the overall 

trends observed in the primary analysis remained 

consistent when analyzing a smaller and more 

comparable set of cases within each offense type. 

This secondary analysis also demonstrates that 

sentencing differences increased uniformly across each 

of the primary guidelines analyzed in this publication 

when comparing the Booker to Gall Periods, which, in 

turn, indicates that sentencing outcomes increasingly 

depended upon the district in which the defendant 

was sentenced. Also, like the primary analysis, this 

trend continued in the secondary analyses of some, 

but not all, primary guidelines from the Gall to the 

Post-Report Periods. Most notably, the analysis 

demonstrated stability or increased variation from the 

Gall to Post-Report Periods, with the notable exception 

of sentencing in §2L1.2 cases. In that analysis, the 

secondary analysis confirmed the primary analysis’s 

conclusion that sentencing practices among districts 

in §2L1.2 cases have become more similar since Gall, 

and more specifically, since the Commission made 

substantial changes to the guideline effective in 2016. 

As a result, the generally consistent trends seen in 

the matched analysis serve as a confirmation of the 

primary analyses.

Comparison of Primary and Matched Analyses

Guideline Methodology Change in Standard Deviation

Booker to Gall Gall to Post-Report

§2B1.1

Primary Analysis + 0.6 + 0.7

Matched Analysis + 4.9 - 0.3

§2D1.1

Primary Analysis + 1.9 + 1.9

Matched Analysis + 3.8 + 2.3

§2K2.1

Primary Analysis + 1.3 + 0.4

Matched Analysis + 3.7 + 4.2

§2L1.2

Primary Analysis + 4.7 - 1.3

Matched Analysis + 2.4 - 3.2
89

1 The Commission’s data collection and dissemination efforts are consistent with its statutory mission as 

established in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of 

government. Established by 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. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 995(a)(14)–(16), (20). 

2 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

3 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing 

https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2012-report-congress-continuing-impact-united-states-v-bookerfederal-sentencing (“2012 Booker Report”).

4 See USSG §1B1.1, comment. (backg’d) (“Subsections (a), (b), and (c) [of §1B1.1] are structured to reflect the threestep process used in determining the particular sentence to be imposed. If, after step (c), the court imposes a sentence that 

is outside the guidelines framework, such a sentence is considered a ‘variance.’); see also United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 

795, 801 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1294 (2013) (“A ‘departure’ is typically a change from the final sentencing 

range computed by examining the provisions of the Guidelines themselves. . . . A ‘variance,’ by contrast, occurs when a 

judge imposes a sentence above or below the otherwise properly calculated final sentencing range based on application of 

the other statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”). 

5 2012 Booker Report, supra note 3, at 89

6 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report

(“Demographic Differences Rep

7 Id. at 2 (analysis of data from fiscal years 2012 to 2016 found that Black males received a 19.1% higher sentence 

on average than White males). 

8 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices (2019) (“Intra

9 Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 366 (1989); see also William W. Wilkins, Phyllis J. Newton & John R. 

Steer, The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: A Bold Approach to the Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity Problem, 2 Crim. L. F. 

(1991). Senator Kennedy, the leading sponsor of the SRA, referred to Congress’s concern over sentencing disparities as 

being “the major impetus for sentencing reform.” Edward M. Kennedy, Toward a New System of Criminal Sentencing: Law with 

Order, 16 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 353, 357 (19

10 Report of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, S. Rep. No. 98–225, 98th Cong. (1st Sess.), 

42 (Sept. 14, 1983) (discussing sentencing disparities studies considered by Congress in enacting the SRA); see also Marv

E. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order 6–7 (1973) (criticizing the “wild array of sentencing judgments 

court] without any semblance of the consistency demanded by our ideal of equal justice” and observing that the type and 

length of federal sentences for similar situated offenders “depend[ed] on the judge” drawn by the defendants).

11 The Booker Period (January 12, 2005–December 9, 2007); the Gall Period (December 10, 2007–September 30, 

2011); and the Post-Report Period (October 1, 2011–September 30, 2017).

12 Two provisions were directed to the Commission, while the third was directed to sentencing judges. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f).

13 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f).

14 Booker, 543 U.S. at 263; see also id. at 264 (“The system remaining . . ., while lacking the mandatory features that 

Congress enacted, retains other features that help to further these objectives [including avoiding unwarranted sentencing 

disparities].”).

15 518 U.S. 81 (1996).

16 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 

ENDNOTES
90 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

17 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

18 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).

19 See 2012 Booker Report, supra note 3, at 54–55

20 Id. at 89. 

21 Id.

22 The “post-report period” discussed in the Commission’s 2017 report on demographic differences spanned fiscal 

years 2012 through 2016. See Demographic Differences Report, supra noe 6,  t 6.  The updated data analyses describ

this report do not include the Koon and PROTECT Act periods that were part of the 2012 and 2017 data analyses. 

23 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2018 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics 84 (2019) (Table 29) (51

all cases had within range sentences, and 2.6% of cases had above range sentences).

24 See USSG §§5G1.1(b) (“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the 

applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”) & 5G1.1(c)(2) 

(“[T]he sentence may be imposed at any point within the applicable guideline range, provided that the sentence . . . is not 

less than any statutorily required minimum sentence.”). For example, if a defendant’s guideline range before application of a 

120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 78–97 months—resulting in a guideline range of 120–120 months 

under USSG §5G1.1(b)—that case was excluded because the court had no sentencing discretion to impose a sentence less 

than 120 months. 

The Commission also excluded all cases with sentences imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) 

even if those cases did not involve a mandatory minimum trump. Section 924(e) requires a 180-month mandatory 

minimum sentence, which is above the otherwise applicable guideline minimums for many armed career criminals and only 

eight months below the guideline minimums for the most serious offenders sentenced under §4B1.4 (after full credit for 

acceptance of responsibility under USSG §3E1.1). See USSG §4B1.4 (Armed Career Criminal) & Ch.5, Pt.A (Sentencing 

Table) (guideline range, after a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, for defendants with highest offense level 

and highest Criminal History Category, i.e., offense level 31 and CHC VI, is 188–235 months). For these reasons, judges’ 

discretion to sentence below the statutory minimum is so circumscribed that the Commission has excluded all section 

924(e) cases from the current study’s analysis.

25 See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); USSG §§5K1.1, 5K.3.1; see also U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff Working Group, 

Federal Sentencing Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ Substantial Assistance to the Government, 11 Fed. Sent’

Rep. 18, 23 (1998) (noting that substantial assistance motions “were almost always granted” once filed by the prosecution); 

L. Felipe Restrepo, To Be Or Not To Be A Cooperating Defendant, 7 Crim. Just. 25 (Winter 1993) (“Practically speaking, jud

rarely deny the [substantial assistance] motion outright . . . .”). 

26 Intra-City Report, supra note 8, at 14

27 Until the Supreme Court decided Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), it was unclear whether district 

courts in such cases had the authority to vary below the guideline range for another count of conviction (e.g., robbery, 

sentenced under USSG §2B3.1) to account for a perceived excessive total penalty level resulting from a consecutive 

statutory mandatory minimum sentence such as that required by section 924(c). Before Dean, some judges varied on that 

ground (see, e.g., United States v. Roberson, 573 F. Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (varying from the guideline minimum of 46 

months for a bank robbery conviction to one month to account for a 84-month consecutive sentence under § 924(c)), while 

others believed that they had no such authority to vary on that ground. The percent difference from the guideline minimum 

in cases where courts did vary on that ground was usually very substantial. Because the extent of a below range sentence 

was often extremely large when a judge varied—and thereby could skew those judges’ average percent differences from 

the guideline minimums compared to the average percent difference of judges who did not believe they could vary on that 

ground—all cases with a count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) or 1028A or other statutes requiring a consecutive 

mandatory sentence of imprisonment were excluded from the Commission’s analysis. In addition, the Commission excluded 

cases with a single count of conviction under such a statute because a court lacked authority to depart or vary downwardly 

in such cases. 

28 Since 2010, when the Commission amended the Sentencing Table to expand Zone B by one offense level, a case 
91

ENDNOTES

with a guideline minimum of less than ten months necessarily has fallen in Zones A or B of the Sentencing Table. Before 

2010, cases with guideline minimums of eight or nine months fell within Zone C. To ensure consistency in the Commission’s 

analysis of cases from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2017, the Commission has excluded all cases with guideline 

minimums less than ten months for that entire time period rather than exclude cases based on their zone designation. 

The Commission excluded such cases for two reasons. First, because all cases in Zone A have guideline minimums of 

zero months, judges cannot depart or vary below the minimum and, in addition, there is no mathematical way to calculate 

the percent difference from the guideline minimum when a court imposes a sentence above the minimum in such cases. 

Second, because all ranges with guideline minimums below ten months are narrow and their minimums are low (e.g., 0–6 

months, 6–12 months), sentences imposed above or below the guideline minimums have a much greater or much lesser 

percent difference than typical sentences above or below the guideline minimums in Zones C and D. The latter ranges have 

higher and broader ranges of months (e.g., 12–18 months, 46–57 months, and 121–151 months). Including cases with 

guideline minimums below ten months would thus skew the average percent difference analysis.

29 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2018 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, Appendix B (2019) ("Sour

30 Of all major guideline types, illegal reentry (§2L1.2) had the highest within-range rate from fiscal year 2005 to 

fiscal year 2017 (after the case exclusions discussed below), while drug trafficking (§2D1.1) had one of the lowest withinrange rates:

Average Within-Range Rates (Fiscal Years 2005–2017)

§2B1.1: 46.0% 

§2D1.1: 46.1%

§2K2.1: 60.8%

§2L1.2: 61.1%

Other: 49.6%

31 Collectively, offenders sentenced under these four guidelines comprised 71.5% of the federal caseload in fiscal 

year 2018, and 69.4% of the caseload in the 13 years covered in this study.

32 See Sourcebook, supra note 29, at 20

33 Of the 674,652 cases, 17,654 were excluded because of incomplete sentencing information in those cases. Such 

cases were excluded because they did not allow the Commission to make determinations such as the guideline minimum in a 

case or whether a statutory mandatory minimum penalty applied.

An additional 311,257 cases were subsequently excluded under one or more of the five exclusionary criteria. Of the 

311,257 cases, 35.7% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were subject to 

a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 51.3% had a substantial assistance or fasttrack departure; 7.4% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as 

section 924(c); 17.1% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure or variance to life 

imprisonment; and 37.6% had guideline minimums of less than ten months. Some cases fell within more than one of these 

groups, which explains why these percentages exceed the total of excluded cases mentioned above.

34 Even if a district had at least 50 cases in a given period, it may not have been included in the analysis of one or 

both of the other periods studied depending on the size of the district’s caseloads in those periods.

35 See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 50 n.6; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1903-04, 1908 (2018); 

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1349 (2016); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 535, 542, 545 

(2013). The three-step Booker process is discussed at USSG §1B1.1, comment. (backg’d).

36 Of the cases in which judges imposed sentences outside of the guideline ranges, judges departed or varied 

downwardly in 95.4% of cases and departed or varied upwardly in 4.6% of cases (a nearly 21:1 ratio between downward 

and upward departures and variances).

37 See Michael O. Finkelstein & Bruce Levin, Statistics for Lawyers 22 
92 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

38 Ottavania v. State University of New York at New Paltz, 875 F.2d 365, 371 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

39 After excluding the five categories of cases identified above, along with cases for which incomplete sentencing 

documentation was submitted to the Commission, 460,930 of the total 972,783 cases (47.4%) during fiscal years 2005 to 

2017 remained for analysis. The cases from one district (Northern Mariana Islands) were also excluded because that district 

sentenced fewer than 50 offenders in each period. As a result, the Commission’s combined analysis presented on page 21 

compares 93 districts in each of the periods and a total of 460,826 cases (100,563 cases in the Booker Period; 142,960 in 

the Gall Period; and 217,303 in the Post-Report Period). 

40 Collectively, offenders sentenced under these four guidelines comprised 71.5% of the federal caseload in fiscal 

year 2018, and 69.4% of the caseload in the 13 years covered in this study.

41 In addition to the primary analysis set forth in the text below, Appendix C discusses statistical outliers in the 

analysis, including a re-calculation of spread and standard deviation excluding the outlier districts.

42 Of the 52,622 cases, 13.8% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were 

subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 26.2% had a substantial assistance or 

fast-track departure; 14.0% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as 

section 924(c); 34.2% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure or variance to life 

imprisonment; and 66.6% had guideline minimums of less than ten months. Some cases fell within more than one of these 

groups, which explains why these percentages exceed the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above.

43 Of the 125,013 cases, 37.2% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were 

subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 68.8% had a substantial assistance or 

fast-track departure; 11.0% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such 

as section 924(c); 3.8% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure or variance to life 

imprisonment; and 6.4% had guideline minimums of less than ten months. Some cases fell within more than one of these 

groups, which explains why these percentages exceed the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above.

44 Of these remaining §2D1.1 cases, only 28.5% (44,249 of 155,089 cases) involved offenders who were subject 

to statutory mandatory minimum sentences. In all those cases, however, judges retained discretion to sentence below 

the guideline minimums (down to the statutory minimums) because none involved mandatory minimum “trumps.” In 

most of those cases, courts sentenced well above the statutory mandatory minimum sentence even as they departed or 

varied below the guideline range, suggesting that prosecutorial charging decisions did not constrain the courts’ sentencing 

discretion in such cases. In over 95% of the 44,249 cases subject to mandatory minimum penalties (42,862 or 96.9%), 

defendants were subject to either 60- or 120-month mandatory minimum sentences. The remaining 3.1% of cases had a 

wide variety of statutes requiring mandatory minimum sentences ranging from one month to 300 months. Of the remaining 

§2D1.1 cases with 60-month mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 113 months and the 

average sentence imposed was 100 months (40 months above the statutory mandatory minimum). Of the remaining 

§2D1.1 cases with 120-month mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 197 months and the 

average sentence imposed was 176 months (56 months above the mandatory minimum).

45 USSG App. C, amend. 706 (effective Nov. 1, 2007), as amended by amend. 711 (effective Nov. 1, 2007); Spears v. 

United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009).

46 Id.

47 USSG App. C, amend. 713 (effective Mar. 3, 2008). Under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), when the Commission reduces a 

guideline range, it is directed to specify whether, and in what circumstances, the reduction should apply to offenders who 

had been sentenced under the previous, higher version of the guideline.

48 See Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–220, §§ 2-3, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010).

49 Congress recently made the Fair Sentence Act statutory changes retroactive as part of the First Step Act of 2018. 

See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–391, § 404, 132 Stat 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018).

50 USSG App. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 2011) (implementing as permanent the temporary, emergency 
93

ENDNOTES

amendment (USSG App. C, amend. 748 (effective Nov. 1, 2010)) that implemented the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010); USSG 

App. C, amend. 759 (effective Nov. 1, 2011).

51 USSG App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) (reducing drug trafficking offense penalties across all drug 

types); USSG App. C, amend. 788 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) (making the 2-level reduction for all drug types retroactive with 

the proviso that no offender may be released before November 1, 2015).

52 USSG App. C, amend. 782, Reason for Amendment.

53 See Webcast: Analysis of Drug Trafficking Offenders and Guidelines, Fig. 6, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n (Jan. 9, 2014),

https://www.ussc.gov/education/videos/webcast-analysis-drug-trafficking-offenders-and-guidelines. 

54 Of the 15,448 cases, 55.0% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were 

subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 43.6% had a substantial assistance or 

fast-track departure; 12.2% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such 

as section 924(c); 4.9% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure or variance to life 

imprisonment; and 13.1% had guideline minimums of less than ten months. Some cases fell within more than one of these 

groups, which explains why these percentages exceed the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above.

55 Of these remaining §2K2.1 cases, only 0.5% (331 of 61,303 cases) involved offenders who were subject to 

statutory mandatory minimum sentences. In all of those cases, however, judges retained discretion to sentence below 

the guideline minimums (down to the statutory minimums) because none involved mandatory minimum “trumps.” In 

most of those cases, courts sentenced well above the statutory mandatory minimum sentence even as they departed or 

varied below the guideline range, suggesting that prosecutorial charging decisions did not constrain the courts’ sentencing 

discretion in such cases. In over half of the 331 cases subject to mandatory minimum penalties (176, or 53.2%), defendants 

were subject to a 60-month mandatory minimum sentence. Of these §2K2.1 cases with 60-month mandatory minimum 

sentences, the average guideline minimum was 133 months and the average sentence imposed was 120 months (60 

months above the statutory mandatory minimum). The remaining 48.8% of cases had a wide variety of statutes requiring 

mandatory minimum sentences ranging from one month to 240 months, but demonstrated the same trend. For example, of 

those §2K2.1 cases with 120-month mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 236 months and 

the average sentence imposed was 191 months (71 months above the mandatory minimum); those offenders subject to a 

one-year mandatory minimum penalty had an average guideline minimum of 88 months and an average sentence imposed 

of 79 months (67 months above the mandatory minimum).

56 Of the 118,174 cases, 0.1% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were 

subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 45.1% had a substantial assistance or 

fast-track departure; 0.1% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as 

section 924(c); 25.2% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure or variance to life 

imprisonment; and 61.0% had guideline minimums of less than ten months. Some cases fell within more than one of these 

groups, which explains why these percentages exceed the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above.

57 See USSG App. C, amend. 802 (effective Nov. 1, 2016). 

58 See id. (noting that, “[i]n fiscal year 2015, only 29.7% of defendants who received the 16-level enhancement 

were sentenced within the applicable sentencing guideline range, and only 32.4% of defendants who received the 12-level 

enhancement were sentenced within the applicable sentencing guideline range”).

59 While the within guideline range rate was historically high in illegal reentry cases (55.4% in fiscal year 2013; 

56.0% in fiscal year 2014; 58.1% in fiscal year 2015; 59.2% in fiscal year 2016), it has increased by more than ten 

percentage points in fiscal year 2018 to 69.3% in the wake of the 2016 amendment. See Sourcebook, supra note 29, a

Table I-7.

60 See USSG App. C, amend. 802 (effective Nov. 1, 2016). 

61 See 2012 Booker Report, supra note 3, at 60–61

62 See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1903–04, 1908 (2018); 
94 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

January 2020

Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1349 (2016); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 535, 542, 545 

(2013). The three-step Booker process is discussed at USSG §1B1.1, comment. (backg’d).

63 See 2012 Booker Report, supra note 3, at 62–66

64 Id., at 67–68.

65 See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 37, at 18–19; see also Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on

Evidence 298 (3d ed. 2011)

66 Rebecca M. Warner, Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques

67 See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 37, at 18–19 (discussing the manner in which the standard deviation 

calculated); Warner, supra note 66, at 59 (same.  Reporting the standard deviation is preferable to reporting the varianc

The variance, which is the standard deviation squared, is more sensitive to outliers than the standard deviation because the 

influence of an outlier is magnified (insofar as the outlier’s average percent difference from the guideline minimum is squared 

in calculating the variance). 

68 Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra note 65

69 Id.

70 See, e.g., Nancy Pfenning, Elementary Statistics 96–97 (2011) (discussing the 1.5 x IQR t

71 Although there were 92 different districts analyzed, districts were often included in more than one period and 

for more than one of the different primary guideline analyses. Therefore, the outlier analysis includes a total of 910 unique 

analyses of district-level sentencing practices in the dataset during the three periods. Note that a district could be an outlier 

in one period but not an outlier in a different period.

72 Matching is a commonly utilized technique in research to ensure study groups have similar characteristics. See 

Elizabeth A. Stuart & Donald B. Rubin, Best Practices in Quasi-Experimental Designs: Matching Methods for Causal Infe

Best Practices in Quantitative Methods 155-176 (2008) (noting that “preexisting differences between the gro

be controlled to obtain approximately unbiased estimates of the effects of interest” and that matching is one method 

utilized to assist with reducing differences, or bias, between groups). There are numerous matching techniques that 

allow researchers to specify a desired level of precision ranging from exact matching between groups (i.e., the groups are 

identical on specified characteristics) to non-exact matching between groups (i.e., the groups are similar but not identical on 

specified characteristics). All matching techniques have an objective of creating comparable groups that are similar on key 

characteristics. The Commission used a method of matching case factors controlling the guideline range (i.e., Final Offense 

Level and Criminal History Category) to control for differences in the nature of the offense within the analyses of a primary 

guideline.
95
96 | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/inter-district-differences-federal-sentencing-practices

THURGOOD MARSHALL FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUILDING

ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE N.E. 

SUITE 2-500, SOUTH LOBBY

WASHINGTON, DC 20002-8002

www.ussc.gov

United States Sentencing Commission