Federal Probation and 

Supervised Release Violations

United States Sentencing Commission

July 2020

CHARLES R. BREYER 

Commissioner

DANNY C. REEVES 

Commissioner

PATRICIA K. CUSHWA

Ex Officio

CANDICE C. WONG

Ex Officio

KENNETH P. COHEN

Staff Director

GLENN R. SCHMITT

Director, Office of Research and Data

JULY 2020

Federal Probation and 

Supervised Release Violations
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Key Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Violations of Probation and Supervised Release in the Federal System...................................... 5

Data Collection and Methodology..........................................................................................................12

Geographic Distribution.............................................................................................................................14

Offender Characteristics ...........................................................................................................................19

Primary Offense Types and Characteristics ........................................................................................20

Types and Lengths of Sentences Imposed ............................................................................................27

Characteristics of Federal Supervision Violations ............................................................................30

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................39

Endnotes..........................................................................................................................................................41

Appendices................................................................................................................................................................ 51

Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations
“

For the first time, the Commission 

is reporting data collected from 

documents related to revocation 

hearings. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

1

Introduction

This report provides information on violations of federal 

probation and supervised release using data collected by 

the United States Sentencing Commission. For the first 

time, the Commission is reporting data collected from 

documents related to revocation hearings. Combined with 

data the Commission regularly collects, this report analyzes 

the characteristics of supervision violations and the 

outcomes of violation proceedings provided in documents 

sent to the Commission by the courts.

As part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,1 which 

created the Commission and charged it with establishing 

the federal sentencing guidelines system,2 Congress 

prospectively eliminated federal parole and established 

different supervision options in federal sentencing. Among 

other things, the Act made probation a sentence in itself, 

whereas probation previously functioned as a stay of the 

imposition or execution of a sentence.3 In addition, the 

Act created a new form of post-imprisonment supervision: 

supervised release.4 As part of its overall work in response 

to the Act, the Commission addressed the new supervision 

options in the federal sentencing guidelines. Specifically, 

Chapter Five and Chapter Seven of the Guidelines Manual5

provide guidelines and policy statements for federal 

courts to address terms and conditions of probation 

and supervised release and violations of each type of 

supervision.

As part of its continuing duty to collect, analyze, and report 

sentencing data,6 the Commission has previously published 

two reports that focused on probation and supervised 

release. In 2010, the Commission published Federal 

Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release,

7 which provided 

a comprehensive review of the legal and data issues 

related to the imposition, modification, and revocation of 

supervised release. In 2019, the Commission published 

Revocations Among Federal Offenders,

8 which explored 

some of the guidelines’ criminal history rules that affect an 

Authors

 Courtney R. Semisch, Ph.D. 

 Senior Research Associate

 Office of Research and Data

 Kristen Sharpe, J.D. 

 Staff Attorney

 Office of General Counsel

 Alyssa Purdy, M.S.

 Research Associate

 Office of Research and Data
U.S. Sentencing Commission

2

offender’s criminal history score and Criminal 

History Category (CHC)—rules regarding 

the revocation of terms of probation, parole, 

supervised release, special parole, and 

mandatory release. The 2019 Revocation 

Report analyzed the prevalence and nature 

of revocations in the criminal history of 

federal offenders and explored the impact 

of revocations on an offender’s eligibility for 

safety valve relief and application of the career 

offender enhancement.9 

This report continues the Commission’s 

work in the area of violations of probation 

and supervised release. Specifically, this 

report discusses the guidelines and policy 

statements that address supervision and 

provides several analyses of violations of 

federal supervision using data collected by 

the Commission. Between 2013 and 2017, 

the Commission collected data on cases in 

which federal courts ruled on supervision 

violation petitions that resulted in violation 

hearings. During that time, the courts ruled 

in 108,115 violation hearings associated 

with 82,384 offenders. This report provides 

information on the prevalence and types of 

supervision violations and characteristics of 

violating offenders based on an analysis of the 

documents from the violation hearings. It also 

compares supervision violators to the overall 

federal offender population using data from 

the Commission’s individual offender datafile 

for offenders whose original sentence was 

probation or included a term of supervised 

release (hereinafter “offenders originally 

sentenced” to supervision, “offenders at 

original sentencings,” or offenders “sentenced 

to supervision”) during the same time period.
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

3

Key Findings

Nationally, the number of individuals under supervision was relatively stable during 

the study period, ranging from 130,224 to 136,156 during the five years. Half of the 

individuals under supervision, however, were concentrated in only 21 of the 94 federal 

judicial districts. 

Nationally, the rate of violation hearings for individuals on supervision also was relatively 

stable, ranging from 16.2 to 18.4 percent during the five years, with an overall rate of 16.9 

percent. The prevalence of supervision violations, however, varied considerably among 

the federal judicial districts.

Violations accounted for more than one-third of individuals on supervision in the Southern District of 

California (42.1%), District of Minnesota (37.4%), Western District of Missouri (34.3%), District of Arizona 

(33.7%), and District of New Mexico (33.4%). In contrast, violations accounted for less than five percent of 

individuals on supervision in the Districts of Connecticut (4.5%) and Maryland (4.7%).

Supervision violators tended to have committed more serious original offenses than 

federal offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of supervised 

release during the same time period. 

For example, the rates of supervision violators originally sentenced for violent and firearms offenses (7.9% 

and 20.4%, respectively) were approximately twice as high compared to offenders originally sentenced 

during the study period (3.7% and 12.8%, respectively), a finding which is consistent with prior Commission 

recidivism research.

Drug offenses were the most common primary offense type for both supervision violators 

and federal offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of 

supervised release during the same time period. There were, however, notable variations 

by drug type. 

For example, crack cocaine offenders accounted for only 9.9 percent of drug offenders whose original 

sentence was probation or included a term of supervised release, but they accounted for almost one-third 

(32.1%) of supervision violators, a greater proportion than any other drug type. The disproportional 

representation of crack cocaine offenders among supervision violators is consistent with prior Commission 

recidivism research. On the other hand, drug offenders who received the safety valve at their original 

sentencing were underrepresented among supervision violators (19.1% compared to 30.7%), a finding that 

also is consistent with prior Commission recidivism research. 
U.S. Sentencing Commission

4

Supervision violators tended to have more serious criminal histories than federal 

offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of supervised release. 

Approximately one-quarter (24.6%) of offenders with supervision violations were in the lowest Criminal 

History Category (CHC I) at the time of their original sentencing compared to almost half (44.9%) of 

offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of supervised release during the study 

period. On the other end of the spectrum, 18.3 percent of offenders with supervision violations were in the 

highest Criminal History Category (CHC VI) at the time of their original sentencing compared to 9.9 percent 

of offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of supervised release during the study 

period. This pattern is consistent with prior Commission recidivism research. 

The majority of supervision violations were based on the commission of an offense 

punishable by a term of one year or less or a violation of another condition of supervision 

not constituting a federal, state or local offense (Grade C Violation).

More than half (54.9%) of violations were Grade C (the least serious classification), nearly one-third (31.5%) 

were Grade B, and 13.6 percent were Grade A (the most serious classification). 

Offenders who were originally sentenced for more serious offenses tended to commit 

more serious supervision violations. 

For example, over four-fifths of the Grade A violations were committed by offenders originally sentenced for 

drug offenses (52.0%), firearms offenses (24.5%), or violent offenses (6.3%).

Offenders who violated their conditions of supervision typically did so within the first two 

years. 

On average, 22 months elapsed from the time supervision commenced to the commission of the supervision 

violation, but the elapsed time was notably longer for Grade A violations (the most serious) at 33 months.

The majority of supervision violators were sentenced in accordance with the Chapter 

Seven Revocation Table. 

More than half (59.8%) were within the applicable range, just over one-quarter (29.1%) were below the 

range, and 11.1 percent were above the range. Courts tended to impose sentences within the applicable 

guideline range less often for more serious supervision violations. For example, for Grade A violations (the 

most serious classification), 39.4 percent were sentenced within the applicable range, and 54.2 percent were 

sentenced below the range. In contrast, for Grade C violations (the least serious classification), 63.6 percent 

were sentenced within the range, and 22.1 percent were sentenced below the range. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

5

Violations of Probation and 

Supervised Release in the Federal System

Probation

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 

ended the authority of federal courts to 

impose probation as a stay of imposition 

or execution of a sentence and instead 

recognized probation as a sentence in itself. 

A sentence of probation may be used as 

an alternative to incarceration, is subject 

to terms and conditions, and constitutes 

a final judgment.12 Although a court may 

terminate a term of probation early after 

considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a), the court also has the authority, 

discussed below, to extend or revoke a 

probation sentence for an offender in 

certain circumstances.13

Sections 3561 through 3566 of title 18, 

United States Code, and Chapter Five, 

Part B of the Guidelines Manual provide 

rules for sentences of probation. Under 

18 U.S.C. § 3561, a federal offender may 

receive a sentence of probation unless: 

(1) the offender is an individual and 

the offense is a Class A or B felony; (2) 

probation is statutorily precluded; or (3) 

the offender is sentenced to prison for 

the same or a different offense that is not 

a petty offense.14 Subject to statutory 

restrictions, §5B1.1 provides for a sentence 

of probation for guideline ranges that 

fall into Zones A or B of the sentencing 

table.15 Section 5B1.1(a)(1) authorizes 

a sentence of probation for offenders 

whose applicable guideline range is in 

Zone A.16 For offenders whose guideline 

range falls into Zone B, §5B1.1(a)(2) 

authorizes probation as long as the court 

additionally requires a term of intermittent 

confinement, community confinement, 

home detention, or a combination of same, 

as provided in §5C1.1(c)(3), that satisfies 

the minimum term of imprisonment for 

the guideline range.17 The guidelines do 

not authorize a sentence of probation for 

offenders whose sentencing ranges fall into 

Zones C or D.18

The Commission promulgated guidelines in Chapter Five, Parts B (Probation) 

and D (Supervised Release), and policy statements in Chapter Seven 

(Violations of Probation and Supervised Release) in the Guidelines Manual10

to provide guidance to federal courts on the imposition of probation and 

supervised release and addressing violations of each.11 The following section 

provides an overview of the laws, guidelines, and policy statements that relate 

to probation and supervised release, different types of violations, and the 

possible outcomes following violations of these two types of supervision. 
U.S. Sentencing Commission

6

Terms and Conditions of Probation

If probation is statutorily available, courts 

must determine the appropriate term of 

probation. Section 3561(c) authorizes the 

following terms of probation: (1) one to five 

years for a felony; (2) not more than five 

years for a misdemeanor; and (3) not more 

than one year for an infraction.19 Pursuant 

to §5B1.2, the sentencing guidelines 

provide that, for a final offense level that 

is six or more, the term shall be one to five 

years.20 For cases with an offense level that 

is less than six, the term of probation shall 

be no more than three years.21

The court must include several conditions 

to any term of probation pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3563. For any offense, the court 

must order the offender not commit 

another criminal offense during the term 

of probation.22 For felony offenses, the 

court must also order the defendant to pay 

restitution or perform community service 

unless the court has imposed a fine under 

18 U.S.C. § 3551, et seq., or extraordinary 

circumstances make such a condition 

unreasonable.23 Finally, as a condition of a 

probation sentence, the court must order 

the offender to: 

• Refrain from unlawful possession or 

use of controlled substances; 

• Submit to drug testing;24

• Pay restitution in a manner 

consistent with federal statutes;

• Pay the required special assessment; 

• Pay fines according to an installment 

schedule (if applicable); 

• Notify the court of material 

economic changes affecting his or her 

ability to pay any restitution, fees, and 

fines; and 

• Submit to DNA testing if authorized 

by and as provided in 34 U.S.C. 

§ 40702.25 

For offenses involving domestic violence, 

the court must additionally require 

the offender to attend a rehabilitation 

program,26 and for those offenses which 

require sex offender registration, the court 

must require compliance with the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification 

Act (SORNA).27 The mandatory conditions 

listed in §5B1.3(a) (Conditions of 

Probation) track the mandatory conditions 

required by section 3563.

In addition to the above mandatory 

conditions, the court has the authority to 

impose other conditions of the offender’s 

probation. The court may impose 

discretionary conditions on the offender, 

such as working at suitable employment, 

refraining from possessing a firearm, 

undergoing treatment, or remaining 

within the jurisdiction of the court.28 The 

guidelines provide discretionary, standard, 

special, and additional conditions that the 

court may impose.29
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

7

Supervised Release

Supervised release, in contrast to 

probation, is not a sentence in itself, but 

is part of an offender’s original sentence. 

Supervised release is not imposed for 

purposes of punishment. Instead, the 

purpose of supervised release is to 

facilitate an offender’s reentry into society 

following a term of imprisonment.30 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, a federal court 

may impose a term of supervised release 

following a sentence of imprisonment 

for any felony or misdemeanor but must

impose a term of supervised release if it 

is required by statute or if the offender is 

convicted, for the first time, of a domestic 

violence crime.31 Additionally, a court must 

consider certain factors in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) in determining whether a term of 

supervised release is appropriate.32

Section 5D1.1(a) provides that courts shall 

order a term of supervised release when 

required by statute or, except as provided 

in §5D1.1(c), when a prison sentence 

imposed exceeds one year.33 Pursuant to 

§5D1.1(b) and (c), the court may order a 

term of supervised release in any other 

case; however, ordinarily it should not 

impose a term where it is not required by 

statute and the defendant is an alien likely 

to be deported following imprisonment, 

unless the court determines that a term 

would provide an added measure of 

deterrence and protection based on the 

facts and circumstances of the case.34 The 

Commentary to §5D1.1 provides further 

recommendations to courts in imposing 

supervised release terms that depend upon 

the offense and offender characteristics.35 

Terms and Conditions of Supervised 

Release

If the court imposes a term of supervised 

release, it determines the appropriate 

term by reviewing (1) any applicable 

statutes for the offense of conviction, (2) 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), and (3) §5D1.2. Section 

3583(b) authorizes the following terms of 

supervised release: (1) not more than five 

years for a Class A or B felony; (2) not more 

than three years for a Class C or D felony; 

and not more than one year for Class E 

felonies and misdemeanors (other than 

petty offenses).36 Section 5D1.2 provides 

similar terms depending upon the class of 

felony offense.37 Courts should consider 

the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) 

and §5D1.1 in determining the length of a 

supervised release term.38 

The mandatory conditions for a term of 

supervised release are similar to those 

required for probation. Section 3583(d) 

requires courts to order offenders to 

refrain from committing any crimes, 

possessing or using controlled substances, 

and, among other conditions, to submit 

to drug testing and pay restitution.39 In 

addition to the mandatory conditions, the 

guidelines provide discretionary, standard, 

special, and additional conditions the court 

may impose in formulating an appropriate 

supervised release term.40
U.S. Sentencing Commission

8

Violations of Probation or 

Supervised Release

Sections 3565 (Revocation of probation) 

and 3583 (Inclusion of a term of supervised 

release after imprisonment) of title 18, 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 

(Revoking or Modifying Probation or 

Supervised Release), and Chapter Seven 

(Violations of Probation and Supervised 

Release) of the Guidelines Manual provide 

rules for federal courts to follow in 

determining the appropriate outcome 

following an offender’s violation of 

probation or supervised release. Under 

these rules, if an offender violates a 

condition of supervision, the court may 

continue supervision by extending the 

term or modifying its conditions, or it may 

revoke the offender’s term of supervision. 

The following sections detail the procedure 

courts follow to determine whether 

an offender has violated probation or 

supervised release and the appropriate 

sentence following a violation. 

Procedure for Determining a 

Supervision Violation under Rule 32.1

The sentencing court retains jurisdiction 

over an offender while on probation or 

supervised release.41 Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, once 

a probation officer notifies the court of 

jurisdiction that an offender is believed 

to have violated one or more conditions 

of probation or supervised release,42 the 

offender may be summoned or arrested.43 

Thereafter, the court must conduct a 

series of hearings to determine whether 

a violation has occurred: an initial 

appearance, a preliminary hearing, and 

a revocation hearing.44 

If the court finds that probable cause 

exists to believe a violation has 

occurred or if the offender waives 

preliminary hearing, the court must 

conduct a revocation hearing within 

a reasonable time.45 An offender 

may waive a revocation hearing, 

admit to the alleged violation, and 

proceed directly to the court’s ruling 

on whether to modify or revoke the 

term of supervision.46 Should the 

offender deny the alleged violation, 

the court must hold a full hearing.  A 

revocation hearing is not a formal trial 

and the Federal Rules of Evidence do 

not apply,47 provided the evidence has 

sufficient indicia of reliability.48 To 

revoke probation or supervised release, 

the court must find by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the offender 

violated the conditions of his or her 

probation or supervised release.49

Probation Violations under 

18 U.S.C. § 3565

Section 3565 and Chapter Seven of the 

Guidelines Manual apply to revocations 

of probation. Section 3565 provides 

that a court may continue or revoke 

an offender’s probation term if the 

offender violates any condition of 

probation prior to its expiration.50 The 

court must hold a hearing pursuant 

to Rule 32.1, detailed above, and 

consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a).51 Section 3565 requires the 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

9

court to revoke the offender’s probation 

and impose a sentence that includes 

imprisonment if the offender (1) possesses 

a controlled substance; (2) possesses a 

firearm in violation of federal law or his 

or her probation conditions; (3) refuses 

to comply with drug testing as required 

by section 3563(a)(4); or (4) tests positive 

for illegal controlled substances more 

than three times within a year.52 Upon 

resentencing following a revocation of 

probation, the defendant may be subject to 

the same penalties that existed during the 

original sentencing proceeding.53

Supervised Release Violations under 

18 U.S.C. § 3583

Section 3583 and Chapter Seven of the 

Guidelines Manual apply to supervised 

release revocations.54 Pursuant to 

section 3583(e), unless there is a statute 

that requires the court to revoke an 

offender’s supervised release following 

a violation, the court may extend the 

term with or without modifying the 

offender’s conditions of supervised 

release.55 Specifically, section 3583(e) 

allows the court, after considering certain 

factors in section 3553(a), to extend a 

term of supervised release if less than the 

maximum term was imposed, to modify the 

conditions pursuant to the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure and other provisions 

of section 3583, to order the offender 

to home detention during certain hours, 

and to order the offender to submit to 

electronic monitoring.56

Section 3583(e) also allows the court to 

revoke the term of supervised release 

if it finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the offender violated one 

or more conditions. The court may, upon 

revocation, require the offender to serve 

a term of imprisonment consisting of 

all or part of the statutorily authorized 

term without credit57 for time served on 

post-release supervision.58 Except for 

certain violations and certain offenses 

of conviction, the court may only require 

an offender to serve up to five years’ 

imprisonment if the offense that resulted 

in the term of supervised release is a Class 

A felony, up to three years for Class B 

felonies, up to two years for Class C or D 

felonies, and up to one year for all other 

cases.59 If the court imposes a sentence of 

imprisonment upon revocation, the court 

may also impose a term of supervised 

release following the imprisonment as 

long as the term does not exceed the term 

authorized for the original offense.60

Section 3583(g) requires the court to 

revoke an offender’s supervised release 

in certain circumstances. Similar to 

mandatory probation revocations, the 

court must revoke an offender’s supervised 

release and impose a sentence of 

imprisonment if an offender (1) possesses 

a controlled substance;61 (2) possesses 

a firearm in violation of federal law or 

his or her supervised release conditions; 

(3) refuses to comply with drug testing 

as required by his or her conditions; or 

(4) tests positive for illegal controlled 

substances more than three times within 

a year.62 The term upon revocation of 

supervised release is limited to those set 

forth in section 3583(e)(3).63
U.S. Sentencing Commission

10

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in 

United States v. Haymond,

64 section 3583(k) 

required the court to revoke an offender 

mandated to register as a sex offender 

under SORNA who commits certain 

offenses65 and impose a mandatory 

minimum punishment of five years in 

prison.66 The Supreme Court held that 

this section of the statute, as applied, 

violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments 

of the Constitution.67

Chapter Seven of the 

Guidelines Manual

Chapter Seven of the Guidelines Manual

consists of policy statements issued by the 

Commission that give courts guidance in 

determining the appropriate punishment 

for violations of probation and supervised 

release.68 Violations of probation and 

violations of supervised release are 

treated as functionally equivalent for 

purposes of the policy statements in 

Chapter Seven.69 Further, the policy 

statements in Chapter Seven provide 

three grades of violations of probation 

and supervised release by level of 

seriousness.70 The grade of the violation, 

along with the offender’s criminal 

history at the time of initial sentencing, 

establishes the offender’s range of 

imprisonment upon revocation.71

Classification of Violations

Section 7B1.1 (Classification of Violations 

(Policy Statement)) provides the following 

grades for violations of probation and 

supervised release:

• Grade A Violations — conduct 

constituting (A) a federal, state, or 

local offense punishable by a term of 

imprisonment exceeding one year

that (i) is a crime of violence, (ii) is 

a controlled substance offense, or 

(iii) involves possession of a firearm or 

destructive device of a type described 

in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a); or (B) any other 

federal, state, or local offense punishable 

by a term of imprisonment exceeding 

twenty years;

• Grade B Violations — conduct 

constituting any other federal, state, or 

local offense punishable by a term of 

imprisonment exceeding one year;

• Grade C Violations — conduct 

constituting (A) a federal, state, or 

local offense punishable by a term of 

imprisonment of one year or less; or 

(B) a violation of any other condition of 

supervision.72

The grade of violation is based upon 

the offender’s conduct, not his or her 

offense of conviction (if any) for the crime 

constituting the violation.73 Furthermore, 

depending on type of weapon involved, a 

violation involving a firearm can be a Grade 

A or B violation.74
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

11

Section 7B1.3(a) provides that a court shall 

revoke an offender’s term of probation or 

supervised release upon finding a Grade 

A or B violation, and it may extend and/or 

modify or revoke a term of probation or 

supervised release upon finding a Grade C 

violation.75 Grade C violations that do not 

constitute criminal offenses are considered 

“technical” violations.76 

The Revocation Table

Upon revocation, the guidelines 

recommend, through the revocation table 

in §7B1.4(a) and subject to the statutory 

limits delineated in §7B1.4(b), terms of 

imprisonment outlined in the table above.77

Section 7B1.4(b) provides guidance on 

how the above recommended ranges 

operate alongside statutory maximum or, if 

applicable, statutory minimum sentences.78 

As noted in the Revocation Table and in 

§7B1.4, Application Note 1, the CHC is the 

same CHC determined at the offender’s 

original sentencing.79 Departures from 

the revocation range may be warranted in 

cases involving (1) other criminal sentences 

unrelated to the violation following the 

grant of federal supervision; (2) Grade 

C violations indicating high risk of new 

felonious conduct; (3) departures given 

under §4A1.3 (Departures Based on 

Inadequacy of Criminal History Category) 

during the original sentencing; or (4) where 

the original sentence was the result of a 

downward departure.80

Service of Terms of Imprisonment

The guidelines provide several sentencing 

outcomes for the court to consider 

depending upon the grade of violation 

and whether the offender is convicted 

of another federal offense. For Grade 

A violations, the guidelines recommend 

service of a term by imprisonment. 

Conversely, for Grade B or C violations, the 

guidelines provide that the offender may 

satisfy the recommended minimum prison 

term through community confinement 

or home detention.81 For offenders 

who violate supervised release and are 

convicted of another federal offense, the 

guidelines recommend that any revocation 

sentence be imposed to run consecutive 

to the sentence for the other federal 

offense.82

Revocation Table 

(in months of imprisonment) Criminal History Category

Grade of Violation I II III IV V VI

Grade C 3-9 4-10 5-11 6-12 7-13 8-14

Grade B 4-10 6-12 8-14 12-18 18-24 21-27

Grade A (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) below:

12-18 15-21 18-24 24-30 30-37 33-41

(2) Where the defendant was on probation or supervised release 

as a result of a sentence for a Class A felony:

24-30 27-33 30-37 37-46 46-57 51-63
U.S. Sentencing Commission

12

Original Sentencing Data 

– Individual Offender 

Datafile 

The Commission collects and analyzes 

data on federal sentences to carry out 

its various statutory responsibilities. As 

authorized by Congress, the Commission’s 

numerous research responsibilities 

include: (1) the establishment of a 

research and development program to 

serve as a clearinghouse and information 

center for the collection, preparation, and 

dissemination of information on federal 

sentencing practices, (2) the publication 

of data concerning the sentencing 

process, (3) the systematic collection and 

dissemination of information concerning 

sentences actually imposed and the 

relationship of such sentences to the 

factors set forth in section 3553(a) of title 

18, and (4) the systematic collection and 

dissemination of information regarding 

the effectiveness of sentences imposed.83

The Commission regularly collects 

information for every federal felony 

and Class A misdemeanor offense 

sentenced each year. Sentencing courts 

are statutorily required to submit five 

sentencing documents to the Commission 

within 30 days of entry of judgment 

in a criminal case: (1) the charging 

document, (2) the plea agreement, 

(3) the Presentence Report, (4) the 

Judgment and Commitment Order, and 

(5) the Statement of Reasons form.84 The 

Commission extracts and codes data from 

these documents for input into various 

databases. For each case in its Offender 

Datafile, the Commission routinely 

collects case identifiers,85 sentencing 

data, demographic variables, statutory 

information, the complete range of court 

guideline application decisions, and 

departure and variance information. This 

report uses data from the Commission’s 

2013–2017 Offender Datafiles to provide 

information on offenders whose original 

sentence was probation or included a term 

of supervised release as a comparison to 

supervision violations as described below.

Supervision Violations 

Data

As a supplement to its research activities, 

the Commission implemented a data 

collection system to track violations of 

federal probation and supervised release 

from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This 

project differed from the Commission’s 

regular data collection primarily because, 

unlike original sentencings, courts do not 

use a standardized reporting system for 

sentences imposed following violations. 

Because the courts differ in reporting 

practices, the Commission sought to 

determine the overall proportion of 

violation documents received from 

the courts. In order to make this 

determination, the Commission compared 

Data Collection and Methodology
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

13

the number of violations for fiscal year 

2017 in which the court ordered the 

supervision revoked to data on revocations 

collected by the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts for that same 

fiscal year. This analysis indicated that the 

Commission had received 88.7 percent of 

all revocations during that period. 

During the five-year period studied, the 

Commission received 108,115 reports of 

violation decisions from the courts. The 

documents the Commission received 

include: (1) the violation report, (2) the 

motion for revocation or petition for 

warrant of arrest or summons, (3) the 

waiver of hearing, (4) the summary of 

violation hearing, (5) the Judgment and 

Commitment Order, and (6) revocation 

worksheets. The Commission collected 

all available information for each of the 

violation cases, including case identifiers, 

the offender’s supervision status at the 

time of the violation, the grade of the 

violation, whether the offender admitted 

to the violation, and the sentence imposed 

by the court for the violation.86 The 

Commission then matched the violation 

data to each offender’s existing original 

sentencing data in its Offender Datafile to 

facilitate comprehensive analyses of these 

federal court actions.87

The following sections provide information 

on violations of federal probation and 

supervised release from fiscal years 

2013 to 2017.88 The first part provides a 

description of the scope and distribution of 

probation and supervision violations. Next 

follows a series of comparisons of offender, 

offense, and sentencing information for 

supervision violations and offenders 

originally sentenced to probation or a term 

of supervised release in the Commission’s 

individual datafile during the same time 

period. The concluding analyses provide 

information on the types, timing, and 

sentencing outcomes of violation hearings.

The second part of this study compares 

offenders who violated supervision to 

offenders originally sentenced during the 

same time period whose sentence was 

probation or included a term of supervised 

release. 89 As such, the point of comparison 

for this study is the federal offender 

population originally sentenced to terms 

of supervision in the same fiscal year as the 

violation proceedings. The federal court 

criminal docket comprises a wide variety 

of daily proceedings. Among them are 

sentencing hearings for offenders alleged 

to have violated a term of probation or 

supervised release and original sentencing 

hearings for offenders convicted of crimes. 

Comparing the two groups provides 

insight into the offenders and offenses that 

came before the courts on any given day 

during the five-year period under study. 

Comparing the two groups also provides an 

opportunity to examine the similarities and 

differences of federal offenders sentenced 

to terms of supervision but at very 

different stages in the legal process.90

The following sections focus exclusively on 

the Commission’s newly available data on 

federal probation and supervised release 

violations—information on the characteristics 

of the violations and hearing outcomes. 
U.S. Sentencing Commission

14

0

35000

70000

105000

140000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Supervision Violations Total Under Supervision

133,601 136,156 133,977 130,224 131,281

23,611 21,057 21,035 20,857 21,555

Between fiscal years 2013 and 2017, 

both the overall number of supervision 

violations and the number of individuals 

under supervision remained consistent. 

As shown in Figure 1, districts reported 

an average of about 21,600 violations per 

year to the Commission. Similarly, the 

total number of offenders on probation 

or supervised release averaged about 

133,000 per year.91 Despite the overall 

consistency, the prevalence of both 

supervision violations and offenders under 

supervision varied considerably by district.

Sixteen of the 94 districts accounted for 

half (50.5%) of the supervision violations 

during the time period (Table 1).9293Two 

Texas districts reported the largest number 

of violations during the time period, 

with more than 8,000 violations in both 

the Southern District (8,797) and the 

Western District (8,225). The Southern 

and Western Districts of Texas together 

accounted for more than 15 percent of 

violations during the time period.

Figure 1. Supervision Violations Reported to the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

and Federal Offenders Under Post-Conviction Supervision

Geographic Distribution
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

15

1

District Number Percent

Cumulative

Percent92

TOTAL 108,115 100.0

Southern Texas 8,797 8.1 8.1

Western Texas 8,225 7.6 15.7

Arizona 6,526 6.0 21.8

Southern California 5,758 5.3 27.1

Western Missouri 3,052 2.8 29.9

Eastern Missouri 2,962 2.7 32.7

New Mexico 2,532 2.3 35.0

Minnesota 2,250 2.1 37.1

Western North Carolina 2,225 2.1 39.2

Southern Florida 1,905 1.8 40.9

Eastern Virginia 1,882 1.7 42.7

Eastern Tennessee 1,834 1.7 44.4

South Carolina 1,677 1.6 45.9

Middle Florida 1,661 1.5 47.4

Northern Texas 1,657 1.5 49.0

Western Washington 1,651 1.5 50.5

Remaining 78 Districts 53,521 49.5 100.0

Prevalence of Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District 

Supervision Violations

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Table 1

The number of offenders on probation 

or supervised release varied more 

widely across districts than the number 

of violations, but some similar patterns 

remained. As shown in Table 2, 21 of the 94 

federal judicial districts accounted for half 

(50.9%) of the offenders under supervision 

during the time period.94 

Some of the districts with the largest 

number of individuals under supervision 

also had the largest number of violations. 

Ten districts were in the top 50 percent 

of both categories: District of Arizona, 

Southern District of California, District of 

South Carolina, Middle District of Florida, 

Southern District of Florida, Eastern 

District of Missouri, Northern District of 

Texas, Southern District of Texas, Western 

District of Texas, and the Eastern District of 

Virginia. 

Table 1. Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

16

The violation data presented in this report 

are somewhat incomplete because they 

exclude an unknown number of probation 

and supervised release violations from 

the Central District of California.95 For 

most districts, the number of supervision 

violations reported to the Commission 

was generally consistent with the number 

of individuals under supervision indicated 

by the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts. The Central District of California, 

despite consistently having the second 

highest number of offenders under 

supervision, did not submit violation 

documents for most of the time period 

under study. Because of the lack of data 

from the district, Central District of 

California cases have been removed from 

the remaining analyses in this report.96 

2

District Number Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

TOTAL 665,239 100.0

Southern Texas 31,352 4.7 4.7

Central California 27,549 4.1 8.9

Western Texas 27,321 4.1 13.0

Southern Florida 24,472 3.7 16.6

Middle Florida 20,139 3.0 19.7

Arizona 19,347 2.9 22.6

Maryland 15,852 2.4 25.0

Eastern New York 15,188 2.3 27.2

Northern Texas 14,902 2.2 29.5

Southern New York 14,805 2.2 31.7

Southern California 13,677 2.1 33.8

South Carolina 13,448 2.0 35.8

Eastern Virginia 13,175 2.0 37.8

Eastern Pennsylvania 12,804 1.9 39.7

Northern Illinois 12,761 1.9 41.6

Puerto Rico 11,807 1.8 43.4

New Jersey 11,693 1.8 45.1

Eastern Missouri 10,173 1.5 46.7

Northern Ohio 9,462 1.4 48.1

Northern California 9,359 1.4 49.5

Northern Georgia 9,291 1.4 50.9

Remaining 73 Districts 326,662 49.1 100.0

Prevalence of Individual Offenders Under Supervision in Each Federal 

Judicial District

Individuals Under Supervision

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Table 2

Table 2. Individuals Under Supervision in Each Federal Judicial District 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

17

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

0

32674.5

65349

98023.5

130698

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Supervision Violations Total Under Supervision Proportion of Total

18.4% 16.8% 16.7% 16.2% 16.5%

128,235 130,698 128,387 124,700 125,670

23,611 20,940 21,035 20,857 21,555

18.4% 16.8% 16.7% 16.2% 16.5%

The Commission compared the number 

of violations for fiscal year 2017 in which 

the court ordered the supervision revoked 

to data on revocations collected by the 

Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts for that same fiscal year. Excluding 

the Central District of California from this 

analysis, the Commission’s files matched 

90.9 percent of the revocations in the 

Administrative Office’s files. 

The overall numbers of probation 

and supervised release violations and 

individuals under supervision depict 

each federal judicial district’s supervision 

caseload. To enable more practical 

comparisons of each district’s caseload, 

the Commission calculated the proportion 

of violations reported as a share of the 

number of individuals under supervision. 

Overall, the share of violations reported 

to the Commission accounted for 16.9 

percent of the total individuals under 

supervision, ranging between 16.2 and 

18.4 percent during each of the five years 

(Figure 2).

Figure 2. Supervision Violations as a Proportion of Total Individuals Under 

Federal Post-Conviction Supervision
U.S. Sentencing Commission

18

The proportion of violations varied 

considerably across districts. As shown in 

Table 3, during the five year time period, 

more than one-third of individuals on 

supervision within the district committed 

a violation in the Southern District of 

California (42.1%), District of Minnesota 

(37.4%), Western District of Missouri 

(34.3%), District of Arizona (33.7%), 

and District of New Mexico (33.4%). 

In contrast, less than five percent of 

individuals on supervision committed a 

violation in the Districts of Connecticut 

(4.5%) and Maryland (4.7%).

District Proportion District Proportion District Proportion 

Southern California 42.1% Colorado 17.6% Southern Indiana 11.1%

Minnesota 37.4% Southern Alabama 17.6% Eastern Oklahoma 10.8%

Western Missouri 34.3% Central Illinois 17.5% Northern California 10.8%

Arizona 33.7% New Hampshire 17.5% Northern Mississippi 10.8%

New Mexico 33.4% Eastern Texas 16.6% Northern Alabama 10.7%

Utah 31.8% Idaho 16.3% Southern Ohio 10.5%

Montana 30.1% Nebraska 16.1% Northern Florida 9.8%

Western Texas 30.1% Rhode Island 16.1% Eastern California 9.6%

Eastern Missouri 29.1% Northern Mariana Islands 15.9% Middle Tennessee 9.3%

Kansas 28.5% Northern New York 15.5% Eastern New York 9.2%

Southern Texas 28.1% Western Tennessee 15.2% Western Pennsylvania 9.1%

Western Oklahoma 28.0% Northern Ohio 14.8% Eastern Michigan 9.0%

Western North Carolina 27.9% Alaska 14.3% District of Columbia 9.0%

Oregon 27.5% Eastern Virginia 14.3% Western Louisiana 9.0%

South Dakota 27.3% Eastern Arkansas 14.2% Western Kentucky 8.9%

Maine 26.9% Southern Mississippi 14.1% Eastern Pennsylvania 8.7%

Western Washington 26.4% Northern Oklahoma 14.0% Virgin Islands 8.6%

Wyoming 25.4% Eastern North Carolina 13.7% Delaware 8.6%

Southern Illinois 23.4% Middle Pennsylvania 13.7% Southern New York 8.5%

North Dakota 23.4% Nevada 13.6% Middle Florida 8.2%

Eastern Kentucky 23.3% Northern Indiana 12.7% Eastern Louisiana 8.2%

Eastern Wisconsin 22.9% Middle North Carolina 12.5% Middle Louisiana 8.2%

Southern West Virginia 22.4% Massachusetts 12.5% Middle Georgia 7.8%

Eastern Tennessee 22.3% South Carolina 12.5% Southern Florida 7.8%

Northern West Virginia 21.8% Western Arkansas 12.0% New Jersey 7.2%

Northern Iowa 20.6% Western New York 12.0% Middle Alabama 7.1%

Hawaii 20.2% Western Wisconsin 11.3% Northern Illinois 6.7%

Southern Georgia 19.7% Western Virginia 11.3% Northern Georgia 6.7%

Vermont 19.2% Guam 11.1% Puerto Rico 6.1%

Eastern Washington 18.8% Southern Iowa 11.1% Maryland 4.7%

Western Michigan 17.9% Northern Texas 11.1% Connecticut 4.5%

Table 3

Proportion of Violations per Share of Total Individuals Under Supervision for Each 

Federal Judicial District

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Table 3. Proportion of Supervision Violators Within Each Federal Judicial District 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

19

Race and citizenship patterns were 

different for supervision violators 

compared to offenders at original 

sentencings from fiscal years 2013 to 

2017, but gender patterns were the 

same. Supervision violators were equally 

distributed across three race categories. 

As shown in Table 4, approximately onethird of supervision violators were Black 

(33.8%), White (31.3%), or Hispanic 

(28.0%). In contrast, Hispanic offenders 

predominated (44.8%) among offenders 

at original sentencings. Similar portions 

of those offenders were White (26.7%) or 

Black (24.0%). 

The proportion of U.S. citizens also differed 

for each group of offenders. Supervision 

violators overwhelmingly comprised U.S. 

citizens (86.3%), compared to 68.4 percent 

of offenders at original sentencings. The 

smaller proportion of non-citizens among 

supervision violations results, to some 

Offender Characteristics Supervision Violators Sentenced to Supervision

 Race/Ethnicity

 White 31.3% 26.7%

 Black 33.8% 24.0%

 Hispanic 28.0% 44.8%

 Other 6.9% 4.6%

 U.S. Citizen 86.3% 68.4%

 Male 89.3% 85.2%

 Average Age 37 Years 37 Years

extent, from the lower rate in which 

courts impose terms of supervised release 

for non-citizen offenders sentenced to 

prison. This is, in part, because of the 

recommendation in §5D1.1 against the 

imposition of a term of supervised release 

when a term not required by statute 

and the offender is likely to be deported 

following imprisonment.97 To illustrate, 

nearly one-fifth (19.3%) of federal 

offenders sentenced to prison during 

the time period were not sentenced to 

supervised release and the overwhelming 

majority (94.2%) of those offenders were 

non-citizens. 

The two groups of offenders were nearly 

identical in terms of gender and age. 

Males constituted the majority of both 

supervision violators (89.3%) and offenders 

at original sentencings (85.2%). In addition, 

the average age for both groups was 37.98

Table 4. Federal Offender Characteristics 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

Offender Characteristics
U.S. Sentencing Commission

20

Although there are some similarities in 

the offense types for the two groups of 

offenders, federal supervision violators 

demonstrated somewhat more serious 

offense patterns. Figure 3 shows the primary 

offense types for both groups of offenders. 

Each group of offenders had similar rates of 

drug, fraud, non-fraud white collar, larceny 

and other types of offenses.99 However, 

the rates of supervision violators originally 

sentenced for violent and firearms offenses 

(7.9% and 20.4%, respectively) were 

approximately twice as high compared to 

offenders at original sentencings during the 

time period (3.7% and 12.8%, respectively). 

In contrast, the rates of immigration offenses 

were lower for supervision violators 

(14.7%) compared to offenders at original 

sentencings (22.0%). The lower rate of 

immigration offenses among supervision 

violations also is related to the low rate in 

which courts impose terms of supervised 

release for non-citizen offenders sentenced 

to prison. While both U.S. citizens and noncitizens committed immigration offenses, 

non-citizens account for a vast majority of 

those offenses and, consequently, for the 

majority of violations among immigration 

offenders.100

The patterns of firearms and violent 

primary offenses among supervision 

violators evoke parallels to previous 

findings in the Commission’s recidivism 

research. In its 2016 publication, Recidivism 

Among Federal Offenders, A Comprehensive 

Overview,

101 the Commission studied 

offenders who were either released from 

federal prison after serving a sentence 

of imprisonment or placed on a term of 

probation in 2005. Among other things, 

the Commission found that the type of 

federal crime that led to an offender’s 

original conviction was also related to 

their likelihood of reoffending. Firearms 

offenders were most likely to be rearrested 

(68.3%) followed closely by robbery 

offenders (67.3%). Fraud offenders were 

least likely to be rearrested (34.2%).102 

The Commission’s continued recidivism 

research further underscores these 

similarities. Two additional studies 

published in 2019, Recidivism Among Federal 

Violent Offenders103 and Recidivism Among 

Federal Firearms Offenders104 demonstrated 

substantially greater recidivism rates 

comparing each respective group of 

offenders to all other federal offenders. 

Specifically, the Recidivism Violence 

Report demonstrated that 60.2 percent of 

Primary Offense Types and 

Characteristics

This section continues the comparisons of supervision violations to original 

sentencings. For supervision violations, the primary offense type is the offense 

for which the offender was originally sentenced to probation or supervised 

release, not the offense that constituted the violation. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

21

Larceny

1.5%

Non-Fraud White Collar

3.0%

Administration of Justice

2.4%

Other

6.3%

Fraud

6.2%

Violent

7.9%

Firearms

20.4%

Immigration

14.7%

Drugs

37.6%

Supervision 

Violators

Larceny

1.7%

Non-Fraud White Collar

3.9%

Administration of Justice

1.9%

Other

8.9%

Fraud

10.8%

Violent

3.7%

Firearms

12.8%

Immigration

22.0%

Drugs

34.3%

Sentenced to

Supervision

Figure 3. Primary Offense Types of Federal Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

22

offenders sentenced for a violent instant 

offense were rearrested within eight years 

of release, compared to 39.8 percent of all 

other federal offenders.105 Similarly, the 

Recidivism Firearms Report demonstrated 

that 68.1 percent of federal firearms 

offenders were rearrested during the same 

time period, compared to 46.3 percent of 

all other federal offenders.106

Drug Offenses

The primary drug type differed between 

the two groups of offenders. Although drug 

offenses were the predominant primary 

offense type for both groups of offenders, 

the predominant drug type was different 

for each group. Nearly one-third (32.1%) 

of original drug sentences for supervision 

violators were for crack cocaine (Figure 

4). Similar proportions involved marijuana 

(20.7%) and methamphetamine (20.4%), 

followed by powder cocaine (14.7%). The 

smallest portion of drug offenses involved 

heroin (6.6%) and other types of drugs 

(5.5%).107 In contrast, the largest portion of 

drug sentences among offenders at original 

sentencings during the time period were 

for methamphetamine (30.4%), followed by 

powder cocaine (21.6%), marijuana (18.0%), 

and heroin (12.3%). The smallest portion of 

drug offenses for these offenders involved 

crack cocaine (9.9%) and other types of 

drugs (7.9%). 

The drug type patterns for supervision 

violations were similar to drug type 

patterns reported by the Commission in its 

previous recidivism research. Specifically, 

the large proportion of original sentences 

for crack cocaine offenses among 

supervision violators is consistent with 

the Commission’s findings for recidivist 

drug offenders. In its 2017 publication, 

Recidivism Among Federal Drug Trafficking 

Offenders,

108 the Commission reported that 

crack cocaine offenders recidivated at the 

highest rate (60.8%) of any drug type, while 

powder cocaine offenders recidivated at 

the lowest rate (43.8%).109

Some drug offenders were eligible for 

sentence reductions under the “safety 

valve” provisions of section 3553. During 

the period studied, the safety valve statute 

provided that the court shall impose a 

sentence pursuant to the sentencing 

guidelines without regard to the otherwise 

applicable statutory minimum for offenders 

who meet the statutory criteria.110 

Specifically, following a government 

motion, offenders who (1) had no more 

than one criminal history point, (2) did 

not use violence or possess a dangerous 

weapon in connection with the offense, 

(3) were not organizers or leaders or 

engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, 

(4) whose offense did not result in death 

or serious bodily injury to any person, and, 

(5) by the time of sentencing, truthfully 

provided to the Government all relevant 

information, were eligible for safety valve 

relief.111

The two groups of offenders differed in 

rates of safety valve reductions. As shown 

in Table 5, less than one-fifth (19.1%) of 

supervision violators originally sentenced 

for a drug offense received a sentence 

reduction for safety valve, compared to 

nearly one-third (30.7%) of drug offenders 

originally sentenced during the time 

period.112 The low rates of safety valve 

application among supervision violators 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

23

also are consistent with previous recidivism 

findings. The Drug Recidivism Report 

demonstrated an inverse association 

between safety valve reductions and 

recidivism rates. Offenders who did 

not qualify for a safety valve reduction 

had higher recidivism rates compared 

to offenders who did qualify (55.7% 

compared to 40.5%). The report continues 

to explain that the lower rate of recidivism 

among offenders who received a safety 

valve reduction was largely attributable 

to the minimal criminal history required 

to receive the safety valve reduction.113 

Criminal history is addressed for all 

offenders in the section below. 

Weapons

Returning to comparisons of all offenders 

in each group, the two groups of offenders 

had generally similar offense characteristics 

(Table 5). There were small differences 

regarding weapon involvement between 

supervision violators and offenders at 

original sentencings. Weapon involvement 

was determined by the application 

of a weapon-related specific offense 

characteristic or a conviction under 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c).114 Weapon involvement 

was similar for both supervision violators 

(11.3%) and offenders at original 

sentencings (10.0%).

Crack Cocaine

Marijuana

Methamphetamine

Powder Cocaine

Heroin

Other Drug 7.9%

12.3%

21.6%

30.4%

18.0%

9.9%

5.5%

6.6%

14.7%

20.4%

20.7%

32.1%

Supervision Violators

Sentenced to Supervision

Figure 4. Primary Drug Type of Federal Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

24

Role in the Offense

The extent of individual offender culpability 

also was similar for supervision violators 

at the time of their original sentencing and 

for offenders originally sentenced during 

the time period. Chapter Three of the 

Guidelines Manual provides for offense level 

adjustments that account for an offender’s 

role in the offense. Relevant to this study, 

Chapter Three provides adjustments for 

offenders whose conduct constitutes an 

aggravating role (§3B1.1) or a mitigating 

role (§3B1.2) in the offense. Section 

3B1.1 provides 2- to 4-level increases for 

offenders who acted in an aggravating 

role in the offense.115 Specifically, §3B1.1 

provides for a 4-level increase for an 

offender who was an organizer or leader 

of a criminal activity that involved five 

or more participants or was otherwise 

extensive, a 3-level increase for a manager 

or supervisor of criminal activity that 

involved five or more participants or 

was otherwise extensive, and a 2-level 

increase to an organizer, leader, manager, 

or supervisor in any criminal activity than 

otherwise described.116 Conversely, §3B1.2 

provides decreases for offenders who 

acted in a mitigating role in the offense, 

depending on whether the offender’s role 

was minor (2-levels), minimal (4-levels), or 

in-between (3-levels).117

As shown in Table 5, both role adjustments 

applied to a very small portion of offenders 

in each group. Less than six percent of both 

supervision violators (2.8%) and offenders 

originally sentenced during the time period 

(5.5%) had offense level increases based 

on an aggravating role in the offense.118 

A slightly larger portion of each had 

offense level reductions for mitigating 

role: 6.9 percent of supervision violators 

and 7.9 percent of offenders at original 

sentencings.119

Offense Characteristics

Supervision Violators Sentenced to Supervision

 Safety Valve 

 (drug offenders only) 19.1% 30.7%

Weapon Enhancement 11.3% 10.0%

Aggravating Role 2.8% 5.5%

Mitigating Role 6.9% 7.9%

Table 5. Offense Characteristics of Federal Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

25

Criminal History

The two groups of offenders had notably 

different criminal histories. Chapter Four 

of the Guidelines Manual provides for the 

calculation of a criminal history score based 

on the status and length of an offender’s 

prior sentences.120 That calculation 

results in a Criminal History Category for 

each offender, ranging from I to VI. The 

criminal histories for supervision violators 

at the time of their original sentencing 

were more serious than for offenders 

originally sentenced during the time 

period. As shown in Figure 5, only onequarter (24.6%) of supervision violators 

were in CHC I at the time of their original 

sentencing, compared to close to one-half 

(44.9%) of offenders originally sentenced 

during the time period. The proportion 

of offenders in the next highest CHC of II 

were nearly equal, but the proportion of 

supervision violators was higher in each 

of the four higher CHCs. The proportion 

of supervision violators in CHC VI, 

18.3 percent, was nearly twice that for 

offenders at original sentencings of 9.9 

percent.121

The more serious criminal histories 

among supervision violators parallel the 

Commission’s previous recidivism findings. 

In both the Recidivism Overview and in 

its 2017 publication The Past Predicts the 

Future: Criminal History and Recidivism 

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

9.9%

5.6%

9.6%

16.6%

13.5%

44.9%

18.3%

9.9%

14.6%

20.5%

12.3%

24.6%

Supervision Violators

Sentenced to Supervision

Figure 5. Criminal History Category of Federal Offenders

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

26

of Federal Offenders,

122 the Commission 

demonstrated that CHC is a strong 

predictor of recidivism. Rearrest rates 

steadily increased from a low of 33.8 

percent for offenders in CHC I to a high of 

80.1 percent for offenders in CHC VI.123

In addition to CHC, the guidelines provide 

for enhanced penalties for two categories 

of career offenders. First, §4B1.1 (Career 

Offender) provides enhanced penalties for 

offenders with an instant conviction for 

a felony crime of violence or a controlled 

substance offense and who have at least 

two prior felony convictions for such 

offenses.124 The proportion of career 

offenders was very small and was similar 

for both supervision violators (3.8%) and 

offenders at original sentencings (3.6%).

Second, §4B1.4 (Armed Career Criminal) 

provides enhanced penalties for armed 

career criminals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e), the Armed Career Criminal Act 

(ACCA). The ACCA and, in turn, §4B1.4, 

provides increased sentences for offenders 

convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) who 

have at least three prior convictions for a 

“violent felony” or “serious drug offense.”125 

The application rates for this provision 

mirror those for career offender. The 

proportions of armed career criminals 

were even smaller for both supervision 

violators (1.5%) and offenders at original 

sentencings (0.8%). 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

27

Although the rates of imprisonment for 

both groups of offenders were similar, 

supervision violators had somewhat 

longer original terms of imprisonment and 

supervision imposed than did offenders at 

original sentencings during the time period. 

The overwhelming majority (and nearly 

equal portions) of offenders in each group 

were originally sentenced to prison (Table 

6), but the terms imposed were slightly 

different. The average sentence originally 

imposed was 54 months for supervision 

violators and 50 months for offenders at 

original sentencings. 

Sentence Types Supervision Violators Sentenced to Supervision

 Prison Only 89.5% 85.0%

Prison and Alternatives 3.9% 3.4%

Probation and Alternatives 2.3% 3.0%

Probation Only 4.3% 8.6%

Table 6. Types of Sentences Imposed on Federal Offenders 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

Types and Lengths of Sentences Imposed
U.S. Sentencing Commission

28

Two-thirds (66.4%) of supervision violators 

were originally sentenced to terms of 

imprisonment of two years or longer, 

compared to just over half (56.4%) of 

offenders originally sentenced during 

the time period. Furthermore, only 10.0 

percent of supervision violators originally 

had sentences of zero to six months’ 

imprisonment, which was less than the rate 

of such sentences for offenders originally 

sentenced during the time period (17.9%) 

(Figure 6).126

The length of supervision terms imposed 

also varied to some extent between the 

two groups. There was little difference in 

the average term of supervision for the two 

groups. The average term of supervision 

originally imposed for supervision 

violators was 45 months. This compares 

to an average of 41 months for offenders 

originally sentenced to supervision 

during the time period. However, longer 

supervision terms were more common for 

supervision violators.127 Figure 7 shows a 

2 yrs or more

66.4%

1 yr to less than 2 yrs

15.7%

6 mos to less than 1 yr

7.9%

0 to less than 6 mos

10.0%

Supervision 

Violators

Sentenced to 

Supervision 2 yrs or more

56.4%

1 yr to less than 2 yrs

15.8%

6 mos to less than 1 yr

9.9%

0 to less than 6 mos

17.9%

Figure 6. Length of Imprisonment at Original Sentencing 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

29

comparison of the length of probation and 

supervised release terms imposed for each 

group. Half as many supervision violators 

(11.5%) originally were sentenced to less 

than 36 months of supervision compared to 

offenders at original sentencings (22.5%). 

Among supervision violators, 28.6 percent 

originally were sentenced to 60 months or 

more of supervision and 59.9 percent were 

sentenced to between 36 and 60 months. 

The rates of these longer terms were 

somewhat lower for offenders at original 

sentencings with 22.4 percent sentenced to 

60 months or more of supervision and 55.1 

percent sentenced to between 36 and 60 

months.

60 mos or more

28.6%

36 to less than 60 mos

59.9%

More than 0 to less than 36 mos

11.5%

Supervision 

Violators

60 mos or more

22.4%

36 to less than 60 mos

55.1%

More than 0 to less than 36 mos

22.5%

Sentenced to

Supervision

Figure 7. Length of Supervision Imposed at Original Sentencing 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

30

A total of 82,270 offenders accounted 

for the 107,998 violation hearings 

during the five-year period. As such, an 

overwhelming majority of offenders, 93.2 

percent, had only one violation hearing. 

The largest number of violation hearings 

for an offender in a single year was nine. 

Offenders admitted to the alleged violation 

in 81.9 percent of the violation cases.128 In 

addition, the majority (87.0%) of violation 

hearings reported to the Commission 

were held in the same federal judicial 

district where the original sentence was 

imposed.129

Types of Violations

As shown in Figure 8, violations of 

supervised release (95.0%), rather than 

probation (5.0%), accounted for the 

overwhelming majority of violation 

hearings during the time period. Although 

violations of supervised release comprised 

most of the supervision violations, 

both types of violation are treated as 

functionally equivalent for purposes of 

the policy statements in Chapter Seven. 

Regardless of the type of supervision 

violated, violations are categorized into 

one of three grades for purposes of 

Chapter Seven.130

Characteristics of Federal Supervision 

Violations 

This section focuses exclusively on the data collected from violation 

records submitted to the Commission from hearings conducted from 

2013 to 2017 and analyzes the types, timing, and sentencing outcomes of 

violation hearings. 

Supervised Release

95.0%

Probation

5.0%

Supervision

Violators

Figure 8. Types of Supervision Violations 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

31

Grades of Violations

As discussed earlier, the guidelines classify 

supervision violations into three grades 

based on the offender’s conduct and the 

punishment applicable to the offense 

underlying the violation. Grade A violations 

are the most serious violations and include 

conduct constituting violent, firearms, or 

drug offenses punishable by more than one 

year of imprisonment, and all other offenses 

punishable by more than 20 years of 

imprisonment. Grade B violations include 

conduct consisting of offenses punishable 

by more than one year of imprisonment. 

Grade C violations are the least serious 

and include conduct constituting an 

offense punishable by one year or less of 

imprisonment, or any other violation of a 

condition of supervision. 

As shown in Figure 9, more than half 

(54.9%) of violations were Grade C and 

nearly one-third (31.5%) were Grade B. 

The smallest proportion of violations, 13.6 

percent were the most serious, Grade A.131

Primary Offense Type

Different proportions of primary offense 

types comprised the three grades of 

violation. The primary offense type 

is the offense for which the offender 

was originally sentenced to probation 

or supervised release, not the offense 

constituting the violation. Figure 10 shows 

the make-up of primary offense types for 

offenders who committed each grade of 

violation.132

Three-quarters (76.5%) of Grade A 

violations were committed by offenders 

who originally were sentenced for drug 

(52.0%) and firearms (24.5%) offenses. 

Grade A violations were committed by 

nearly equal proportions of offenders 

originally sentenced for violent (6.3%), 

immigration (7.0%), and other types of 

offenses (7.2%). Offenders originally 

sentenced for fraud offenses accounted for 

the smallest portion of Grade A violations.

Grade C Violation

54.9% Grade B Violation

31.5%

Grade A Violation

13.6%

Supervision 

Violators

Figure 9. Grades of Supervision Violations 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

32

The composition of primary offense 

types was notably different for Grade 

B violations. The largest portion, 38.8 

percent, of Grade B violations were 

committed by offenders who originally 

were sentenced for an immigration offense. 

Combined, a similar proportion of Grade B 

violations, 43.5 percent, were committed 

by offenders originally sentenced for drug 

(29.4%) and firearms (14.1%) offenses. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

7.2%

3.1%

6.3%

7.0%

24.5%

52.0%

Grade A Violations

Immigration

Firearms

Violent

All Other

Fraud

Drugs

9.0%

5.2%

3.5%

38.8%

14.1%

29.4%

Grade B Violations

Immigration

Firearms

Violent

All Other

Fraud

Drugs

Figure 10. Original Offense Type and Grade of Violation 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

Immigration

Firearms

Violent

All Other

Fraud

Drugs

Grade C Violations

0 20 40 60 80 100

15.7%

6.2%

10.5%

8.9%

21.1%

37.5%

Grade C violations included a somewhat 

broader share of primary offense types 

compared to the other two grades. 

Grade C violations also were committed 

predominantly (58.6%) by offenders 

originally sentenced for drug (37.5%) 

and firearms (21.1%) offenses, but also 

included larger proportions of offenders 

originally sentenced for fraud (6.2%), 

violent (10.5%), and other types of offenses 

(15.7%). Offenders originally sentenced 

for immigration offenses accounted for 8.9 

percent of Grade C violations. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

33

Criminal History Category

In cases involving a finding of a Grade A 

violation, the violators tended to have 

somewhat more serious criminal histories, 

but the patterns were mixed. As shown 

in Figure 11, CHC VI offenders had the 

highest rates of Grade A violations (16.4%). 

In comparison, CHC I offenders had the 

lowest rate of Grade A violations (11.1%). 

The rates of Grade B violations were 

the same for CHC VI (28.6%) and CHC 

I (28.5%) offenders. However, the rates 

of Grade B violations were highest for 

offenders in CHCs II–V, averaging about 

one-third of offenders in each of those 

categories. The majority of violations in 

each CHC were Grade C violations, with 

the highest rates for CHC I (60.4%) and 

CHC VI (55.0%). 

Time to Violation

Offenders who violated their conditions of 

supervision typically did so within the first 

two years. On average, 22 months elapsed 

from the time supervision commenced 

to the commission of the violation. The 

elapsed time was notably longer for 

the most serious grade of violation. On 

average, nearly three years (33 months) 

elapsed prior to Grade A violations. The 

less serious violations occurred earlier, 

on average, in an offender’s supervision 

term. The average time elapsed prior to 

Grade B and Grade C violations was less 

than two years, 23 months and 20 months, 

respectively. 

Figure 11. Criminal History Category and Grade of Violation

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

55.0%

52.0%

50.8%

52.8%

54.0%

60.4%

28.6%

32.8%

33.7%

34.1%

34.1%

28.5%

16.4%

15.2%

15.5%

13.2%

12.0%

11.1%

Grade A Violation Grade B Violation Grade C Violation
U.S. Sentencing Commission

34

instructions to the court according to the 

grade of violation. The guidelines provide 

that the court shall revoke probation or 

supervised release for findings of Grade A 

or Grade B violations. However, for Grade 

C violations, the guidelines instruct that the 

court may revoke probation or supervised 

release or extend the term of probation 

or supervised release and/or modify the 

conditions of supervision.133 

To some extent, the types of sentences 

imposed for each grade of violation 

reflect implementation of these guideline 

provisions. Nearly all Grade A and Grade 

B violations involved a revocation, as 

those offenders were almost exclusively 

sentenced to imprisonment. The 

overwhelming majority of sentences for 

Grade A (95.0%) and Grade B (93.7%) 

violations were for prison only. Smaller 

proportions of sentences for Grade A 

(3.7%) and Grade B (4.4%) violations 

were for prison and an alternative type of 

Outcomes of Violation 

Hearings

Courts primarily imposed prison terms 

at violation hearings. As shown in Figure 

12, courts sentenced most supervision 

violators to prison only (78.7%) or prison 

with an alternative type of confinement 

(7.4%). Courts sentenced an additional 

10.2 percent of the violators to an 

alternative type of confinement only, 

and 0.5 percent to an alternative type 

of confinement with a condition of 

supervision. Only 3.2 percent were 

sentenced to either supervision only (1.2%) 

or community service only (2.0%). The 

average term of imprisonment imposed at 

violation hearings was 11 months.

Grades of Violation

As discussed earlier, Chapter Seven of the 

Guidelines Manual provides procedural 

Community Service Only

2.0%

Supervision Only

1.2%

Supervision and Alternatives

0.5%

Alternatives Only

10.2%

Prison and Alternatives

7.4%

Prison Only

78.7%

Supervision 

Violators

Figure 12. Outcomes of Supervision Violation Hearings

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

35

confinement. The imprisonment rate was 

somewhat lower for Grade C violations. 

This lower rate reflects, in part, the 

sentencing options available to courts for 

Grade C violations. Courts sentenced the 

majority (83.2%) of Grade C violations to 

prison only. An additional, 15.0 percent of 

Grade C violations resulted in a sentence 

involving imprisonment with an alternative 

type of confinement (11.4%), an alternative 

type of confinement only (2.9%), or an 

alternative type of confinement with a 

condition of supervision (0.7%) (Figure 13).

The average terms of imprisonment 

imposed at revocation hearings varied 

for the three grades of violation. Courts 

sentenced Grade A violations to an 

average of 21 months imprisonment. By 

comparison, courts sentenced Grade 

B and C violations to average terms of 

imprisonment of 12 months and eight 

months, respectively.

Figure 13. Violation Hearing Outcomes by Grade of Violation

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

Alternatives Only

Prison + Alternatives

Supervision + Alternatives

Community Service 

Supervision Only

Prison Only

0 25 50 75 100

0.1%

0.5%

0.2%

0.6%

3.7%

95.0%

Grade A Violations Grade B Violations

Alternatives Only

Prison + Alternatives

Supervision + Alternatives

Community Service 

Supervision Only

Prison Only

0.1%

0.5%

0.3%

1.0%

4.4%

93.7%

Grade C Violations

Alternatives Only

Prison + Alternatives

Supervision + Alternatives

Community Service 

Supervision Only

Prison Only

0% 2,500% 5,000% 7,500% 10,000%

0.2%

1.5%

0.7%

2.9%

11.4%

83.2%
U.S. Sentencing Commission

36

Sentences Relative to the 

Revocation Table

The Revocation Table at §7B1.4(a) provides 

grade-based sentencing guidance to the 

court. The table establishes imprisonment 

ranges for revocations based on the grade 

of violation and the offender’s CHC at 

the time of original sentencing. The table 

provides for alternatives to incarceration 

for Grade C violations and some Grade B 

violations. In addition, the table provides 

a more punitive array of imprisonment 

ranges for Grade A violations committed 

while the offender was on probation or 

supervised release as a result of a sentence 

for a Class A felony. 

In most cases, courts sentenced violators 

in accordance with the Revocation Table. 

More than half (59.8%) of sentences were 

within the table ranges (Figure 14). Just 

over one-quarter (29.1%) of sentences 

were below the range, and 11.1 percent 

were above the range.134 

Grades of Violation

Sentences relative to the Revocation Table 

range varied substantially for the different 

grades of violation. Grade A violations had 

much higher below range rates compared 

to Grade B and Grade C violations.

As noted above, the guidelines distinguish 

between Grade A violations for purposes 

of the Revocation Table and provide more 

punitive imprisonment ranges for Grade A 

violations under supervision for a Class A 

felony. Of the 10,992 identified Grade A 

violations, one-quarter (25.9%) were under 

supervision for a Class A felony and subject 

to the higher ranges. The remaining 74.1 

percent of Grade A violations did not have 

a Class A felony conviction. 

Above Range

11.1%

Within Range

59.8%

Below Range

29.1%

Supervision 

Violators

Figure 14. Supervision Violation Sentences Relative to the Revocation Table

Fiscal Years 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

37

As shown in Figure 15, sentences relative 

to the Revocation Table ranges were 

nearly identical for each type of Grade 

A violation. Courts sentenced over onethird of Grade A violations committed 

while under supervision for a Class 

A felony (38.0%) and other Grade A 

violations (39.9%) within the Revocation 

Table range, while more than half of 

each (56.1% and 53.6%, respectively) 

were sentenced below the range. Rates 

of above range sentences were low for 

both types of Grade A violations, 5.9 

percent for those with Class A felonies, 

and 6.6 percent for the other Grade A 

violations. Sentences relative to the 

Revocation Table range for Grade B and 

Grade C violations differed substantially 

from Grade A violations. Courts 

sentenced nearly two-thirds of Grade B 

(62.8%) and Grade C (63.6%) violations 

within the Revocation Table range and 

approximately one-quarter of each grade 

below the range (29.1% and 22.1%, 

respectively). Grade B and C violations 

had higher rates of sentences above the 

Revocation Table range, 8.1 percent and 

14.3 percent, respectively.

Figure 15. Sentences Relative to the Revocation Table by Grade of Violation 

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

Below Range

Within Range

Above Range

0 20 40 60 80 100

56.1%

38.0%

5.9%

Grade A Violations/

Class A Felonies

Below Range

Within Range

Above Range

0 20 40 60 80 100

53.6%

39.9%

6.6%

Grade A Violations Grade C Violations

0% 2,000% 4,000% 6,000% 8,000% 10,000%

22.1%

63.6%

14.3%

Grade B Violations

0 20 40 60 80 100

29.1%

62.8%

8.1%

Below Range

Within Range

Above Range

Below Range

Within Range

Above Range
U.S. Sentencing Commission

38

Table 7. Prevalence of Within Range Sentences Across the Revocation Table

Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Table 7: Sentences Within the Revocation Table Range for Each Grade of Supervision 

Fiscal Years 2013 - FY2017

Grade of Violation I II III IV V VI

Grade C 69.3 67.5 63.6 65.8 56.4 54.9

Grade B 72.0 74.4 67.1 62.3 51.8 43.2

Grade A 58.3 51.0 56.4 47.5 12.1 11.9

Grade A (Class A Felony) 47.8 37.6 40.3 36.0 34.7 30.1

Revocation Table

Criminal History Category

NATIVE DOCUMENT FOR POWERPOINT FILE Low Within 

Range Rates

High Within 

Range Rates

As noted previously, the Revocation Table 

provides ranges based on both grade of 

violation and CHC at the time of original 

sentencing. Table 7 shows a comparison of 

within range sentencing rates that accounts 

for both factors. More than half of Grade C 

violations were sentenced within the range, 

regardless of CHC. All of the sentencing 

ranges for Grade C violations provide for 

the substitution of alternative types of 

confinement for some or all of the term of 

incarceration. A large portion of Grade B 

sentences also were within the range. The 

lowest rates of within range sentences for 

Grade B violations were for CHC IV, V, and 

VI, sentencing ranges that are not eligible 

for alternative types of confinement.135

The two types of Grade A violations had 

very different patterns of within range 

sentences when accounting for CHC. The 

overall within range rates for Grade A 

violations of 39.9 percent and 38.0 percent 

for those with Class A felonies mask 

substantial differences for the different 

CHCs. A large proportion of Grade A 

violations in CHC I–IV were sentenced 

within the range. However, only about 12 

percent of sentences for Grade A violations 

in CHC V and VI were within range. By 

comparison, within range sentences for 

Grade A violations with Class A felonies 

were relatively consistent across CHCs. 

Fewer than half of Grade A violations with 

Class A felonies were sentenced within the 

range, and the rate decreased somewhat 

steadily for higher CHCs.
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

39

Conclusion

This report analyzes information collected 

on federal probation and supervised release 

violations that occurred in fiscal years 

2013 to 2017. This report provides data 

regarding offense characteristics, offender 

characteristics, violation types, and hearing 

outcomes for violations of probation 

and supervised release, and presents 

data comparing offender and offense 

characteristics of supervision violators and 

offenders at original sentencings. 

Nationally, the number of individuals 

under supervision was relatively stable 

during the study period, however, half of 

the individuals under supervision were 

concentrated in only 21 of the 94 federal 

judicial districts. Nationally, the rate 

of violation hearings for individuals on 

supervision also was relatively stable, 

with an overall rate of 16.9 percent. The 

prevalence of supervision violations, 

however, varied considerably among the 

federal judicial districts ranging from more 

than one-third of individuals on supervision 

in some districts to below five percent of 

individuals on supervision in others.

The primary offense types and criminal 

histories of supervision violators were 

somewhat more serious than those for 

offenders at original sentencings. Those 

differences were apparent in the longer 

average sentences originally imposed for 

offenders who violated supervision. 

This report provides a detailed analysis of 

supervision violations, including the types 

of supervision, the grade of violation, and 

resulting court actions. Supervised release, 

rather than probation, accounted for the 

overwhelming majority of supervision 

violations (95.0%). In general, violations 

were comparatively non-serious. More 

than one-half were Grade C violations, 

the least serious type. In addition, the 

majority of supervision violators were 

sentenced in accordance with the Chapter 

Seven Revocation Table. This report is 

intended to provide data regarding offense 

characteristics, offender characteristics, 

violation types, and hearing outcomes for 

violations of probation and supervised 

release. 
U.S. Sentencing Commission

40
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

41

1 Pub. L. No. 98–473, 98 Stat. 1987 [hereinafter “the Act”].

2 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); 28 U.S.C. §§ 991–998.

3 S. Rep. No. 98–225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 55 at 59 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3242. 

4 Id. at 3305–08 (“The term of supervised release is very similar to a term of probation, except that it follows a term 

of imprisonment and may not be imposed for purposes of punishment or incapacitation since those purposes will have been 

served to the extent necessary by the term of imprisonment.”).

5 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2018) [hereinafter U

6 28 U.S.C. § 995(a)(12).

7 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Federal Offenders Sentenced to Supervise Release (2010),  https://w

default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2010/20100722_Supervised_Release.pdf [hereinafter

2010 Supervised Release Rep

8 Tracey Kyckelhahn & S. Alexander Maisel, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Revocations Among F

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2019/20190131_

Revocations.pdf [hereinafter 2019 Revocation Report

9 Id. at 24–29.

10 The Commission promulgated guidelines and policy statements in response to directives in 28 U.S.C. § 994. 

Sections 994(a)(1) and (a)(2) direct the Commission to promulgate and distribute guidelines and policy statements that 

determine whether probation or supervised release should be imposed, and, if so, any appropriate terms and conditions 

of said term. Section 994(a)(3) further requires the Commission to promulgate “guidelines or general policy statements 

regarding the appropriate use of the provisions for revocation of probation set forth in section 3565 of title 18, and the 

provisions for modification of the term or conditions of supervised release and revocation of supervised release set forth in 

section 3583(e) of title 18.” 28 U.S.C. § 994.

11 See USSG Ch.7. 

12 18 U.S.C. § 3562(b). 

13 18 U.S.C. §§ 3564, 3565.

14 18 U.S.C. § 3561. Class A or B felonies are offenses that involve maximum sentences of life imprisonment or 

death, or 25 years of imprisonment or more, respectively, and courts must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in 

determining whether probation, in addition to the terms and conditions of such probation, is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a), 3559, and 3562(a). 

15 Zone A is limited to guideline ranges of zero to six months. Zone B includes guideline ranges encompassing 1-15 

months of imprisonment, depending upon the final offense level and the offender’s Criminal History Category (CHC). USSG 

Ch.5, Pt.A (Sentencing Table). 

Endnotes
U.S. Sentencing Commission

42

16 USSG §5B1.1(a)(1). The guidelines, including the provisions of Chapter Five, became advisory following the 

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The policy statements in Chapter Seven have 

always been advisory. See 2010 Supervised Release Report, supra note 7, at 6 n.25, 40 n.196; USSG Ch.7, P

17 USSG §5B1.1(a)(2) and comment. (n.1(B)).

18 USSG §5B1.1, comment. (n.2). 

19 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c). 

20 USSG §5B1.2(a)(1). 

21 USSG §5B1.2(a)(2). 

22 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a). 

23 Id. If the court finds the presence of such extraordinary circumstances on the record, it shall impose one or more 

of the other discretionary conditions as listed in subsection (b). Id. 

24 The prohibition of the use of controlled substances and subsequent testing can be waived or suspended if the PSR 

or other information reliably indicates the defendant is low risk for substance abuse. If the court imposes this condition, the 

defendant must submit to testing within 15 days of release and at least two times thereafter. Id. 

25 Id.

26 Id. “Domestic violence crime” is “a crime of violence for which the defendant may be prosecuted in a court of the 

United States in which the victim or intended victim is the spouse, former spouse, intimate partner, former intimate partner, 

child, or former child of the defendant, or any other relative of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3561(b). 

27 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(8). 

28 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b). 

29 USSG §5B1.3(b)–(e). 

30 See S. Rep. No. 98–225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 55 at 125. 

31 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a). Convictions for drug trafficking offenses and certain kidnapping and sex offenses require a 

term of supervised release. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. 

32 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). The statute lists the following provisions from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for courts to consider: (a)

(1) (nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant), (a)(2)(B) (deterrence), 

(a)(2)(C) (protect the public), (a)(2)(D) (provide defendant with needed educational or vocational training), (a)(4) (kinds 

of sentences and sentencing range established for offenses and offender by the Commission), (a)(5) (Commission policy 

statements), (a)(6) (avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities), and (a)(7) (restitution).
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

43

33 USSG §5D1.1(a).

34 USSG §5D1.1(b), (c); USSG §5D1.1, comment. (n.5). 

35 Specifically, the Commentary states that a court may not impose a term of supervised release, and thereby 

depart from the §5D1.1 guideline, if (1) supervised release is not required by statute, (2) the court considers the factors 

in Application Note 3, and (3) the court finds that supervised release is unnecessary. USSG §5D1.1, comment. (n.1). 

Application Note 2 provides that a court may impose a term of supervised release in any other case after considering the 

factors in Application Note 3. USSG §5D1.1, comment. (n.2). The non-exhaustive list of factors provided in Application 

Note 3 include the statutory factors in § 3583(c) and § 3553(a), the offender’s criminal history, any substance abuse issues, 

and any issues involving domestic violence. USSG §5D1.1, comment. (n.3).

36 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b). Courts are authorized to impose any term of years, including a lifetime term, of supervised 

release for defendants convicted of terrorism predicate offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(j).

37 See USSG §5D1.2 (providing for, among other terms, two to five years for Class A or B felonies, one to three years 

for Class C or D felonies, and one year for Class E felonies and Class A misdemeanors). Notably, offenders who qualify 

for safety valve relief are exempt from statutory minimum terms of supervised release. See USSG §5D1.2, comment. 

(n.2); USSG §5C1.2, comment. (n.9) (“A defendant who meets the criteria under this section is exempt from any otherwise 

applicable statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment and statutory minimum term of supervised release.”). See also

USSG §5C1.2; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Relief from mandatory terms also may be available through 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and 

§5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement)). 

38 USSG §5D1.2, comment. (n.4). See supra notes 32-35 and accompanying text. 

39 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Intermittent confinement may only be used for supervised release as a condition upon 

violation. Id. See also USSG §7B1.3, comment. (n.5). 

40 USSG §5D1.3(b)–(e). The standard, special, and additional conditions in §5D1.3(c)–(e) are similar to the 

conditions listed in §5B1.3(c)–(e).

41 18 U.S.C. § 3601. A court’s jurisdiction, however, may be transferred to another district court in the district where 

the offender is required or permitted to proceed on probation or supervised release with the concurrence of such court. 18 

U.S.C. § 3605. 

42 Section 7B1.2 requires notification of violations unless certain circumstances are met. This notification 

requirement, along with the classifications of violations, are discussed in more detail below. See infra notes 71-75 and 

accompanying text. 

43 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32

44 Id. 

45 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(

46 Id. When an offender waives a revocation hearing and admits to the alleged violations, the court’s duty is simply 

to ensure that the admission was counseled and voluntary.  United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989).
U.S. Sentencing Commission

44

47 Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). 

48 See, e.g., United States v. Colón-Maldonado, 953 F.3d 1, 9-10 (1st Cir. 2020); United States v. Pritchard, 579 F. 

App’x 513, 519 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing USSG §6A1.3). 

49 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)(3) (supervised release violations). See also Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000). 

For probation violations, the statute does not state the burden of proof required; however, several circuit courts have 

applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. See, e.g., United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996); United 

States v. Bujak, 347 F.3d 607, 609 (6th Cir. 2003). 

50 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a). 

51 Id. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a

52 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b). See also USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.5). If an offender fails a drug test pursuant to a condition, 

the court shall consider whether the availability of substance abuse programs, or an offender’s participation in such a 

program, warrants an exception to mandatory revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a); USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.6).

53 See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (“If the defendant violates a condition of probation at any time prior to the expiration or 

termination of the term of probation, the court may . . . revoke the sentence of probation and resentence the defendant 

under [sections 3551 et seq.].”). 

54 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), (e), (g)-(i), and (k). 

55 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Issuance of a violation warrant or summons prior to the expiration of the term extends its 

expiration to allow for adjudication of the matter, subject to the limitations in § 3583(h). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i).

56 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 

57 Id. See also USSG §7B1.5 (providing no credit shall be given towards sentences of imprisonment for probation or 

post-release supervision previously served). 

58 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The statute lists the same factors listed in supra note 32 that the court must consider in 

revoking a term. 

59 Id. 

60 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Specifically, section 3583(h) states, “[t]he length of such a term of supervised release shall not 

exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised 

release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” See also USSG §7B1.3(g)(2)

(same). Sections 5D1.1–1.3 apply to any new term of supervised release. USSG §7B1.3(g)(1). 

61 Some circuits have held that the use of a controlled substance equates to possession of that controlled substance, 

which, as stated above, requires revocation. See United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833, 835 (6th Cir. 2000) (upholding district 

court’s mandatory revocation of supervised release term based upon positive drug test and admission of use of a controlled 

substance); United States v. Cordero, 271 F. App’x 336 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Under [section 3583(g)(1)], revocation of supervised 

release is mandatory if the defendant possessed a controlled substance in violation of the terms of his supervised release. 

Proof that a defendant intentionally used a controlled substance is sufficient to establish possession of that substance 

within the meaning of § 3583(g).”). Courts have addressed the resulting conflict between subsections 3583(g)(1) and (g)(4), 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

45

in that mandatory revocation would apply for one positive drug test unless subsection (d) applies, in different ways. See, e.g., 

United States v. Hammonds, 370 F.3d 1032, 1037 (10th Cir. 2004) (“We believe the mens rea requirement in subsection (g)

(1), requiring the government to prove . . . the defendant knowingly and voluntarily used the drug revealed by the drug test, 

sufficiently distinguishes it from subsection (g)(4) so that the latter provision may apply in circumstances where the former 

does not.”); Crace, 207 F.3d at 835 (“We believe that the district court was correct in finding that it was required by 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(g) to revoke . . . unless the defendant could come under the exception in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).”); United States v. 

Pierce, 132 F.3d 1207, 1208 (8th Cir. 1997) (“‘Although a court may find possession based on a positive drug test (as it did in 

this case), it is not required to do so and the court may provide for treatment without revoking the offenders’ [sic] release.’ 

We believe this language is clear and to the point. The district court had the discretion to provide for treatment rather than 

imprisonment.”). The reasoning by the courts likely extends to probation revocations under subsections 3565(b)(1) and (b)

(4) given the similar language in those subsections.

62 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). See also USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.5). For an offender who fails a drug test, the court shall 

consider whether the availability of substance abuse programs, or an offender’s participation in such a program, warrants an 

exception to mandatory revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.6).

63 Id. 

64 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019).

65 Chapter 109A, 110, 117, section 1201 or 1591 offenses punishable by more than one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). 

66 Id. 

67 Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2373.

68 For this chapter, the Commission issued policy statements rather than guidelines because policy statements 

are expressly authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(3) and they allow greater flexibility for the Commission and the courts. The 

policy statements reflect the Commission’s view that the sanction for violations should reflect the defendant’s “breach of 

trust,” and take into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the offender’s criminal 

history. See USSG Ch.7, Pt.A. 

69 USSG Ch.7, Pt.B, intro. comment. (“Because these policy statements focus on the violation of the court-ordered 

supervision, this chapter, to the extent permitted by law, treats violations of the conditions of probation and supervised 

release as functionally equivalent.”). See also USSG Ch.7, Pt.A. 

70 USSG Ch.7, Pt.A(4). 

71 Id.

72 USSG §7B1.1. If an offender has more than one violation, the court uses the most serious grade of violation. Id.

73 USSG §7B1.1, comment. (n.1). The terms “crime of violence” and “controlled substance offense” are defined in 

§4B1.2 (Definitions of Terms Used in Section 4B1.1). USSG §7B1.1, comment. (n.2, 3).

74 For example, a firearm described in §7B1.1(a)(1)(iii) includes, but is not limited to, certain shotguns and rifles, 

machine guns, silencers, and destructive devices, and possession of such a firearm or device constitutes a Grade A violation. 

USSG §7B1.1(a)(1)(iii) and comment. (n.4). In contrast, possession of a firearm not included in §7B1.1(a)(1)(iii) by a felon 

generally constitutes a Grade B violation. USSG §7B1.1, comment. (n.5). 
U.S. Sentencing Commission

46

75 USSG §7B1.3(a). Revocation is recommended for Grade C violations where the defendant has been continued on 

probation or supervised release previously following a supervision violation. USSG §7B1.3, comment. (n.1). 

76 Pursuant to §7B1.2, probation officers must promptly report alleged violations to the court unless the violation 

is a Grade C violation that the probation officer determines is a minor violation that is not part of a pattern, and that failure 

to report the violation would not create an undue risk to another or violate court directives. USSG §7B1.2. An example of a 

minor violation fitting this criterion is one instance of failure to report or a minor traffic violation. 

77 USSG §7B1.4. 

78 USSG §7B1.4(b). For example, §7B1.1(b)(2) provides that, where a minimum term of imprisonment is required by 

statute and that minimum term is greater than the maximum of the applicable range in the revocation table, the minimum 

term required by statute is substituted for the applicable range. 

79 USSG §7B1.4(a); USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.1). 

80 USSG §7B1.4, comment. (n.2-4). 

81 USSG §7B1.3(c). 

82 See USSG §7B1.3(f). See also USSG §§7B1.3(d) and 7B1.5 (discussing unpaid fines and restitution; unserved terms 

of intermittent confinement, community confinement, home detention; and recommended prohibition of time credits).

83 28 U.S.C. §§ 995(a)(12) and (14)–(16).

84 28 U.S.C. § 994(w)(1). 

85 Case identifiers include, but are not limited to, defendant name and case docket number.

86 Courts submitted a Judgment and Commitment Order for nearly all violations in the Commission’s datafiles. 

However, because the 94 judicial districts do not use a standardized reporting system for violation cases, submission rates 

were lower for the other types of documents, ranging from 13.4% submitting violation hearing waivers to 81.9% submitting 

the motion for revocation or petition for an arrest warrant or summons. Because of the range of documentation provided, 

some violation records have more complete information than others. 

87 The supervision violation datafile consists of cases in which the court ruled on a violation petition. In the event of 

multiple violations during the time period, a single individual offender could be represented in the datafile more than once 

but with records specific to each violation proceeding. Offenders with multiple violations also could appear in multiple 

years’ datafiles. In addition, offenders who had an original sentencing hearing and a revocation hearing during the five-year 

period would appear in both datafiles. 

88 In fiscal years 2013–2017, the Commission’s supervision violation datafile included 108,115 cases. Cases were 

excluded from various analyses in this report due to missing information for the variables required for those analyses. 

89 In fiscal years 2013–2017, the Commission’s individual offender datafiles included 361,489 cases. A total of 

63,828 cases were excluded from this analysis that did not involve a sentence of probation or include a term of supervised 

release or that were missing information on the imposition of a term of supervision. In addition, cases were excluded from 

various analyses in this report due to missing information for the variables required for those analyses. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

47

90 This analysis uses the federal offender population whose original sentence was probation or included a term of 

supervised release as a comparison group. An alternative approach would have been a comparison of offenders sentenced 

in the same year who commit violations to those who did not commit violations. That approach was impracticable in this 

instance. The 108,115 violations offenders in this study were originally sentenced over a period of nearly 30 different fiscal 

years (1989 through 2017). Compiling data for the comparison group of offenders who did not violate supervision during 

that time period was not feasible.

91 See U.S. Courts, Caseload Statistics Data Tables E-2 (2013–2017), https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-repo

caseload-statistics-data-tables. Only data for persons on probation or supervised release were included.

92 See Appendix A for table showing all 94 districts.

93 “Cumulative Percent” is the proportion of total violations following the addition of each district in the table.

94 See Appendix B for table showing all 94 districts.

95 Record comparisons did not reveal similar undercounts for any other districts, but it is possible that an unknown 

number of violations were unreported by any number of districts. 

96 Of the 108,115 supervision violations, a total of 117 cases from the Central District of California were excluded. 

Of the 297,661 original sentences of probation and supervised release, a total of 5,825 cases from the Central District of 

California were excluded.

97 See supra note 34 and accompanying text.

98 The average age for supervision violators at the time of sentencing for the original offense was 32 years.

99 The primary offense types used in this report include: violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual 

abuse, assault, robbery, and arson), drugs (drug trafficking, communication facility, and simple possession), firearms, 

larceny, fraud, non-fraud white collar (embezzlement, forgery/counterfeiting, bribery, tax offenses, and money laundering), 

immigration, administration of justice, and other offenses (burglary, auto theft, racketeering/extortion, gambling/lottery, 

civil rights, pornography/prostitution, prison offenses, environmental/game/fish/wildlife offenses, national defense, 

antitrust, food/drug, and traffic/other). For additional information see U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2017 Sourcebook 

Sentencing Statistics (2018), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-andsourcebooks/2017/2017SB_Full.

100 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2019 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, Table 9 (

www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2019/2019-AnnualReport-and-Sourcebook.pdf. The Commission’s previous offense categories are used in this report by necessity, but the 

most recent offense categories are referenced for this comparison.

101 Kim Steven Hunt & Robert Dumville, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Amog Federal

Overview (2016), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/201

recidivism_overview.pdf [hereinafter Recidivism Overvie

102 Id. at 20.

103 Kim Steven Hunt, Matthew J. Iaconetti, & Kevin T. Maass, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Rec

Violent Offenders (2019), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2019/20190124_Recidivism_Violence.pdf [hereinafter Recidivism Viole
U.S. Sentencing Commission

48

104 Matthew J. Iaconetti, Tracey Kyckelhahn & Mari McGilton, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Rec

Firearms Offenders (2019), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2019/20190627_Recidivism_Firearms.pdf [hereinafter Recidivism Fir

105 Recidivism Violence Report, supra note 103, at 

106 Recidivism Firearms Report, supra note 104, a

107 The supervision violators in this study were originally sentenced between 1989 and 2017. Because the 

prevalence of crack cocaine offenders has decreased substantially over time, the Commission also analyzed the proportion 

of crack cocaine offenders whose original sentence was probation or included a term of supervised release dating back to 

1992 (the first year the Commission collected information on drug type). The proportion of crack cocaine offenses varied 

widely for both groups during that time period ranging from 10.1% to 61.2% for supervision violators and from 7.8% 

to 26.6% for the overall federal drug offender population at original sentencings. Nevertheless, considering the entire 

time period, the proportion of crack cocaine offenders among supervision violators was nearly double the proportion of 

offenders originally sentenced for crack cocaine over the longer time period, 32.1% compared to 18.8%. 

108 Louis Reedt, Kim Steven Hunt, James L. Parker, Melissa K. Reimer & Kevin T. Maass, U.S. S

Among Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research

research-publications/2017/20170221_Recidivism-Drugs.pdf [hereinafter Drug Recidivism Rep

109 Id. at 27 and 41.

110 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2017). Because the relevant time period ended in fiscal year 2017, the offenders were subject 

to a version of section 3553(f) that preceded the amendments enacted by First Step Act of 2018. See Pub. L. No. 115–391, 

§ 402, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).

111 Id. During the time period under study, the safety valve provisions applied to offenses under section 401, 404, or 

406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 844, 846) and section 1010 or 1013 of the Controlled Substances 

Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 960, 963).

112 Analyses of application of specific guideline provisions is limited to cases for which the Commission received 

complete guideline application information. 

113 Drug Recidivism Report, supra note 108, a

114 To determine weapon involvement, the Commission included the application of a guideline enhancement for 

weapon involvement, any conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), or both. The data on weapon involvement does not include: 

(1) cases in which a weapon is present in the offense, but the offender was not convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) or did 

not receive a weapon-related sentencing enhancement, (2) cases in which the specific enhancement can be applied for 

multiple reasons (for example, the specific enhancement can be applied if the offense involved either physical contact or if 

a dangerous weapon was possessed), or (3) cases sentenced as weapon offenses under USSG Chapter Two, Part K (unless 

they were convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).

115 USSG §3B1.1. 

116 Id.

117 USSG §3B1.2. 
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

49

118 For supervision violators with an offense level increase for Aggravating Role, the breakdown was as follows: 

2-level increase, 51.1%; 3-level increase, 23.0%; 4-level increase, 25.9%. For offenders at original sentencings with an 

offense level increase for Aggravating Role, the breakdown was as follows: 2-level increase, 41.6%; 3-level increase, 24.9%; 

4-level increase, 33.5%.

119 For supervision violators with an offense level decrease for Mitigating Role, the breakdown was as follows: 2-level 

decrease, 78.8%; 3-level decrease, 6.5%, 4-level decrease, 14.6%. For offenders at original sentencings with an offense 

level decrease for Mitigating Role, the breakdown was as follows: 2-level decrease, 75.9%; 3-level decrease, 6.5%, 4-level 

decrease, 17.7%.

120 See generally USSG Ch.4.

121 As noted, the comparison group of offenders originally sentenced during the time period comprises a larger 

proportion of non-citizens. Non-citizens generally have lower CHCs due to the fact that sentences resulting from foreign 

convictions are not counted under the guidelines pursuant to §4A1.2(h). However, the citizenship composition has a limited 

overall impact on the distribution of CHC for offenders originally sentenced during the time period. The CHC distribution 

for U.S. citizens was as follows: CHC I (45.4%), CHC II (11.4%), CHC III (15.1%), CHC IV (9.3%), CHC V (5.9%), CHC VI 

(12.9%). The CHC distribution for non-citizens was as follows: CHC I (43.3%), CHC II (18.0%), CHC III (19.9%), CHC IV 

(10.4%), CHC V (5.0%), CHC VI (3.4%). 

122 Tracey Kyckelhahn & Trishia Cooper, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts th

Recidivism of Federal Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2017/20170309_Recidivism

123 Id. at 7-8; Recidivism Overview, supra note 101, at 18–1

124 USSG §4B1.1.

125 See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); USSG §4B1.4.

126 Similar proportions of supervision violators (30.3%) were subject to a mandatory minimum penalty at the time of 

their original sentencing compared to offenders originally sentenced during the time period (26.3%).

127 A very small proportion of supervision violators (0.7%) and offenders at original sentencings (1.2%) were 

sentenced to supervision terms of life.

128 An offender may admit or deny a violation. If the defendant denies the allegation, the court must conduct an 

evidentiary hearing then make a finding on the violation. If the offender admits to the allegation, the court need not 

hold an evidentiary hearing, but it must decide if revocation is warranted following the admission. See supra note 46 and 

accompanying text.

129 The court, in imposing any discretionary conditions on the offender’s supervision, may order the offender to 

remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless granted permission to leave by either the court or a probation officer. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d) and 3563(b)(14).

130 See supra notes 69, 72 and accompanying text.
U.S. Sentencing Commission

50

131 Of the 107,998 violations, a total of 26,914 (24.9%) were missing information on grade of violation and were 

excluded from the grade-based analyses. The rates of missing grade of violation varied widely by federal judicial district, 

ranging from 0.0% to 99.1%. Grade of violation was missing for nearly all violation records from the Eastern District of 

Texas (99.1%), District of Montana (98.8%), Western District of Washington (97.0%), Southern District of Iowa (96.2%), and 

District of Hawaii (95.3%).

132 The figure is limited to the five largest primary offense types, each accounting for more than 5% of the total.

133 See supra note 75 and accompanying text.

134 The Commission did not collect information on sentence relative to the Revocation Table range from the hearing 

documentation. The Commission regularly collects information on whether the court imposed a sentence outside the 

guideline range and if so, the reasons for imposing such a sentence. That information is collected from the Statement of 

Reasons form submitted by the court. Because courts do not use a standardized reporting system for violation hearings, 

the position of the sentence relative to the Revocation Table range was determined by comparing the sentence imposed to 

the applicable range for each grade and CHC combination (and Class A felony for Grade A violations). This determination 

accounted for the provisions in §7B1.3(c) that provide for alternatives to incarceration for Grade C violations and some 

Grade B violations based on the minimum term of imprisonment specified in the table. They do not, however, account for 

the provisions relating to statutory minimum and maximum terms, as that information was not collected from the violation 

records.

135 See supra note 81 and accompanying text.
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

51

District Number Percent

Cumulative

Percent

TOTAL 108,115 100.0

Southern Texas 8,797 8.1 8.1

Western Texas 8,225 7.6 15.7

Arizona 6,526 6.0 21.8

Southern California 5,758 5.3 27.1

Western Missouri 3,052 2.8 29.9

Eastern Missouri 2,962 2.7 32.7

New Mexico 2,532 2.3 35.0

Minnesota 2,250 2.1 37.1

Western North Carolina 2,225 2.1 39.2

Southern Florida 1,905 1.8 40.9

Eastern Virginia 1,882 1.7 42.7

Eastern Tennessee 1,834 1.7 44.4

South Carolina 1,677 1.6 45.9

Middle Florida 1,661 1.5 47.4

Northern Texas 1,657 1.5 49.0

Western Washington 1,651 1.5 50.5

Oregon 1,566 1.5 51.9

Kansas 1,550 1.4 53.4

Utah 1,426 1.3 54.7

Northern Ohio 1,401 1.3 56.0

Eastern New York 1,397 1.3 57.3

Montana 1,298 1.2 58.5

Eastern Wisconsin 1,280 1.2 59.7

Eastern Texas 1,261 1.2 60.8

Southern New York 1,256 1.2 62.0

Eastern North Carolina 1,252 1.2 63.2

Eastern Kentucky 1,224 1.1 64.3

Western Oklahoma 1,180 1.1 65.4

South Dakota 1,142 1.1 66.4

Eastern Pennsylvania 1,114 1.0 67.5

Colorado 1,023 1.0 68.4

Southern Illinois 1,017 0.9 69.4

Nebraska 1,008 0.9 70.3

Northern California 1,007 0.9 71.2

Southern Alabama 987 0.9 72.1

Western Tennessee 971 0.9 73.0

Southern Ohio 908 0.8 73.9

Massachusetts 889 0.8 74.7

Appendix A

Prevalence of Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Supervision Violations

Appendix A: Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District

Fiscal Year 2013-2017
U.S. Sentencing Commission

52

District Number Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Appendix A

Prevalence of Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Supervision Violations

Southern Georgia 872 0.8 75.5

Eastern California 857 0.8 76.3

Middle North Carolina 856 0.8 77.1

Northern Illinois 854 0.8 77.9

New Jersey 840 0.8 78.7

Southern West Virginia 773 0.7 79.4

Eastern Michigan 768 0.7 80.1

Nevada 764 0.7 80.8

Northern West Virginia 759 0.7 81.5

Central Illinois 752 0.7 82.2

Northern New York 744 0.7 82.9

Maryland 742 0.7 83.6

Hawaii 737 0.7 84.2

Northern Iowa 737 0.7 84.9

Puerto Rico 724 0.7 85.6

Western New York 707 0.7 86.2

Western Michigan 647 0.6 86.8

Western Virginia 645 0.6 87.4

Northern Alabama 641 0.6 88.0

Northern Georgia 620 0.6 88.6

Southern Mississippi 611 0.6 89.2

Western Pennsylvania 607 0.6 89.7

Maine 602 0.6 90.3

Eastern Washington 589 0.5 90.8

Eastern Arkansas 584 0.5 91.4

Wyoming 534 0.5 91.9

North Dakota 514 0.5 92.3

Middle Pennsylvania 501 0.5 92.8

Southern Iowa 497 0.5 93.3

Northern Indiana 472 0.4 93.7

Idaho 437 0.4 94.1

Northern Florida 429 0.4 94.5

Southern Indiana 425 0.4 94.9

Eastern Louisiana 394 0.4 95.3

Northern Oklahoma 372 0.3 95.6

Western Louisiana 355 0.3 95.9

Middle Tennessee 339 0.3 96.2

Western Kentucky 337 0.3 96.6

Rhode Island 328 0.3 96.9
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

53

District Number Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Appendix A

Prevalence of Supervision Violations in Each Federal Judicial District 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Supervision Violations

District of Columbia 321 0.3 97.2

Northern Mississippi 308 0.3 97.4

New Hampshire 306 0.3 97.7

Middle Georgia 290 0.3 98.0

Connecticut 283 0.3 98.3

Alaska 259 0.2 98.5

Vermont 259 0.2 98.7

Western Arkansas 239 0.2 99.0

Western Wisconsin 211 0.2 99.2

Middle Alabama 201 0.2 99.3

Middle Louisiana 162 0.2 99.5

Eastern Oklahoma 149 0.1 99.6

Delaware 119 0.1 99.7

Central California 117 0.1 99.8

Guam 93 0.1 99.9

Virgin Islands 53 0.1 100.0

Northern Mariana Islands 28 0.0 100.0
U.S. Sentencing Commission

54

District Number Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

TOTAL 665,239 100.0

Southern Texas 31,352 4.7 4.7

Central California 27,549 4.1 8.9

Western Texas 27,321 4.1 13.0

Southern Florida 24,472 3.7 16.6

Middle Florida 20,139 3.0 19.7

Arizona 19,347 2.9 22.6

Maryland 15,852 2.4 25.0

Eastern New York 15,188 2.3 27.2

Northern Texas 14,902 2.2 29.5

Southern New York 14,805 2.2 31.7

Southern California 13,677 2.1 33.8

South Carolina 13,448 2.0 35.8

Eastern Virginia 13,175 2.0 37.8

Eastern Pennsylvania 12,804 1.9 39.7

Northern Illinois 12,761 1.9 41.6

Puerto Rico 11,807 1.8 43.4

New Jersey 11,693 1.8 45.1

Eastern Missouri 10,173 1.5 46.7

Northern Ohio 9,462 1.4 48.1

Northern California 9,359 1.4 49.5

Northern Georgia 9,291 1.4 50.9

Eastern North Carolina 9,129 1.4 52.3

Eastern California 8,931 1.3 53.6

Western Missouri 8,896 1.3 54.9

Southern Ohio 8,688 1.3 56.3

Eastern Michigan 8,497 1.3 57.5

Eastern Tennessee 8,223 1.2 58.8

Western North Carolina 7,981 1.2 60.0

Eastern Texas 7,603 1.1 61.1

New Mexico 7,583 1.1 62.2

Massachusetts 7,123 1.1 63.3

Middle North Carolina 6,841 1.0 64.3

Western Pennsylvania 6,679 1.0 65.4

Western Tennessee 6,380 1.0 66.3

Connecticut 6,341 1.0 67.3

Nebraska 6,267 0.9 68.2

Western Washington 6,264 0.9 69.1

Minnesota 6,018 0.9 70.1

Northern Alabama 6,007 0.9 71.0

Appendix B

Prevalence of Individual Offenders Under Supervision in Each Federal Judicial 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Individuals Under Supervision

Appendix B: Individual Offenders Under Supervision in Each Federal Judicial District

Fiscal Year 2013-2017
Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations

55

Western New York 5,894 0.9 71.8

Colorado 5,797 0.9 72.7

Western Virginia 5,713 0.9 73.6

Oregon 5,696 0.9 74.4

Nevada 5,630 0.8 75.3

Southern Alabama 5,617 0.8 76.1

Eastern Wisconsin 5,585 0.8 77.0

Kansas 5,440 0.8 77.8

Eastern Kentucky 5,249 0.8 78.6

Northern New York 4,799 0.7 79.3

Eastern Louisiana 4,790 0.7 80.0

Utah 4,482 0.7 80.7

Southern Iowa 4,468 0.7 81.4

Southern Georgia 4,432 0.7 82.0

Northern Florida 4,364 0.7 82.7

Southern Illinois 4,346 0.7 83.3

Southern Mississippi 4,323 0.6 84.0

Montana 4,309 0.6 84.6

Central Illinois 4,302 0.6 85.3

Western Oklahoma 4,219 0.6 85.9

South Dakota 4,176 0.6 86.5

Eastern Arkansas 4,119 0.6 87.2

Western Louisiana 3,950 0.6 87.7

Southern Indiana 3,833 0.6 88.3

Western Kentucky 3,783 0.6 88.9

Middle Georgia 3,708 0.6 89.4

Northern Indiana 3,707 0.6 90.0

Middle Pennsylvania 3,657 0.5 90.6

Hawaii 3,648 0.5 91.1

Middle Tennessee 3,636 0.5 91.7

Western Michigan 3,619 0.5 92.2

Northern Iowa 3,575 0.5 92.7

District of Columbia 3,567 0.5 93.3

Northern West Virginia 3,474 0.5 93.8

Southern West Virginia 3,445 0.5 94.3

Eastern Washington 3,126 0.5 94.8

Northern Mississippi 2,864 0.4 95.2

Middle Alabama 2,827 0.4 95.6

Idaho 2,684 0.4 96.0

Northern Oklahoma 2,653 0.4 96.4

Maine 2,237 0.3 96.8

North Dakota 2,199 0.3 97.1

Wyoming 2,102 0.3 97.4

Rhode Island 2,042 0.3 97.7

Western Arkansas 1,984 0.3 98.0

Middle Louisiana 1,984 0.3 98.3

Western Wisconsin 1,862 0.3 98.6

Alaska 1,805 0.3 98.9

District Number Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

TOTAL 665,239 100.0

Southern Texas 31,352 4.7 4.7

Central California 27,549 4.1 8.9

Western Texas 27,321 4.1 13.0

Southern Florida 24,472 3.7 16.6

Middle Florida 20,139 3.0 19.7

Arizona 19,347 2.9 22.6

Maryland 15,852 2.4 25.0

Eastern New York 15,188 2.3 27.2

Northern Texas 14,902 2.2 29.5

Southern New York 14,805 2.2 31.7

Southern California 13,677 2.1 33.8

South Carolina 13,448 2.0 35.8

Eastern Virginia 13,175 2.0 37.8

Eastern Pennsylvania 12,804 1.9 39.7

Northern Illinois 12,761 1.9 41.6

Puerto Rico 11,807 1.8 43.4

New Jersey 11,693 1.8 45.1

Eastern Missouri 10,173 1.5 46.7

Northern Ohio 9,462 1.4 48.1

Northern California 9,359 1.4 49.5

Northern Georgia 9,291 1.4 50.9

Eastern North Carolina 9,129 1.4 52.3

Eastern California 8,931 1.3 53.6

Western Missouri 8,896 1.3 54.9

Southern Ohio 8,688 1.3 56.3

Eastern Michigan 8,497 1.3 57.5

Eastern Tennessee 8,223 1.2 58.8

Western North Carolina 7,981 1.2 60.0

Eastern Texas 7,603 1.1 61.1

New Mexico 7,583 1.1 62.2

Massachusetts 7,123 1.1 63.3

Middle North Carolina 6,841 1.0 64.3

Western Pennsylvania 6,679 1.0 65.4

Western Tennessee 6,380 1.0 66.3

Connecticut 6,341 1.0 67.3

Nebraska 6,267 0.9 68.2

Western Washington 6,264 0.9 69.1

Minnesota 6,018 0.9 70.1

Northern Alabama 6,007 0.9 71.0

Appendix B

Prevalence of Individual Offenders Under Supervision in Each Federal Judicial 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Individuals Under Supervision
U.S. Sentencing Commission

56

New Hampshire 1,752 0.3 99.1

Delaware 1,391 0.2 99.3

Eastern Oklahoma 1,376 0.2 99.6

Vermont 1,346 0.2 99.8

Guam 835 0.1 99.9

Virgin Islands 614 0.1 100.0

Northern Mariana Islands 176 0.0 100.0

District Number Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

TOTAL 665,239 100.0

Southern Texas 31,352 4.7 4.7

Central California 27,549 4.1 8.9

Western Texas 27,321 4.1 13.0

Southern Florida 24,472 3.7 16.6

Middle Florida 20,139 3.0 19.7

Arizona 19,347 2.9 22.6

Maryland 15,852 2.4 25.0

Eastern New York 15,188 2.3 27.2

Northern Texas 14,902 2.2 29.5

Southern New York 14,805 2.2 31.7

Southern California 13,677 2.1 33.8

South Carolina 13,448 2.0 35.8

Eastern Virginia 13,175 2.0 37.8

Eastern Pennsylvania 12,804 1.9 39.7

Northern Illinois 12,761 1.9 41.6

Puerto Rico 11,807 1.8 43.4

New Jersey 11,693 1.8 45.1

Eastern Missouri 10,173 1.5 46.7

Northern Ohio 9,462 1.4 48.1

Northern California 9,359 1.4 49.5

Northern Georgia 9,291 1.4 50.9

Eastern North Carolina 9,129 1.4 52.3

Eastern California 8,931 1.3 53.6

Western Missouri 8,896 1.3 54.9

Southern Ohio 8,688 1.3 56.3

Eastern Michigan 8,497 1.3 57.5

Eastern Tennessee 8,223 1.2 58.8

Western North Carolina 7,981 1.2 60.0

Eastern Texas 7,603 1.1 61.1

New Mexico 7,583 1.1 62.2

Massachusetts 7,123 1.1 63.3

Middle North Carolina 6,841 1.0 64.3

Western Pennsylvania 6,679 1.0 65.4

Western Tennessee 6,380 1.0 66.3

Connecticut 6,341 1.0 67.3

Nebraska 6,267 0.9 68.2

Western Washington 6,264 0.9 69.1

Minnesota 6,018 0.9 70.1

Northern Alabama 6,007 0.9 71.0

Appendix B

Prevalence of Individual Offenders Under Supervision in Each Federal Judicial 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2017

Individuals Under Supervision

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