One Columbus Circle, NE Suite 2-500 

Washington, DC 20002–8002

TEL : (202) 502–4500 FAX: (202) 502– 4699 

www.ussc.gov
Michael Courlander

Editor-in-Chief & Photographer

Jeanne Doherty

Design Coordination
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

Ricardo H. Hinojosa

Chair

Ruben Castillo

Vice Chair

William K. Sessions III

Vice Chair

John R. Steer

Vice Chair

Dabney L. Friedrich

Commissioner

Michael E. Horowitz

Commissioner

Beryl A. Howell

Commissioner

Kelli H. Ferry

Commissioner (ex officio)

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.

Commissioner (ex officio)
September 10, 2007

To Recipients of this Guide to Publications & Resources:

On behalf of the United States Sentencing Commission, I am pleased to provide a

copy of our 2007-2008 Guide to Publications & Resources. In furtherance of its mandate to

promote research and disseminate information on sentencing, the Commission offers this

catalog, which lists and describes our available publications, data, and information

resources. Please note that the guide features subject and title indices. In addition, the

Commission's website at www.ussc.gov makes available a variety of reports, materials, and

other information.

Please feel free to call upon the Commission if you have any questions about the

catalog or if we may be of service in any other way.

Sincerely,

Ricardo H. Hinojosa

Chair
Table of Contents

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

GPO Regional Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Publication and Resource Availability ...................................... 2

Information Resources .................................................. 3

HelpLine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Internet Site (www.ussc.gov)...................................... 3

Video and Audio Tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Public Comment and Official Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Library Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Guideline Training and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Commission Publications ................................................ 8

Guidelines Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Annual Reports and Statistical Sourcebooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Reports to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Legal Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Policy Development Team and Working Group Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Staff Discussion Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Other Reports and Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Commission Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Organizational Defendant Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appeals Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Historical Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Special Study Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Index by Publication Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Index by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

1

Introduction

The United States Sentencing Commission, created by the Sentencing Reform

Act of 1984, establishes for the federal courts sentencing policies and practices that

further the purposes and objectives set forth in the Act. The Commission is

specifically directed by the Act (1) to establish a research and development program;

(2) to provide a clearinghouse and information center for the collection, preparation,

and dissemination of information on federal sentencing practices; and (3) to serve in a

consulting capacity in the development, maintenance, and coordination of sound

sentencing practices. The Commission conducts research in support of its mandate,

compiles information on data sources and relevant criminal justice studies, and

collects data on guidelines application and other federal criminal justice processes to

inform the Congress, the courts, the criminal justice community, and the public.

GPO Regional Depository Libraries

Under an agreement with the Government Printing Office, copies of basic

Sentencing Commission publications are made available in hard copy or on microfiche

to patrons using the GPO Regional Depository Libraries across the nation.

If you would like the location of the nearest Federal Depository Library, visit

www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html, or send an e-mail to: askLPS@gpo.gov, or call

(202) 512-1114.
United States Sentencing Commission

2

Publication and Resource Availability

The Commission seeks to carry out its congressional mandates through the

most efficient use of government resources and consistent with its agreement with the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts regarding the confidentiality of certain

documents. Public access is available to all items listed in this Guide to Publications

& Resources. Some may be downloaded from the Commission’s web site, some are

available on request, others are placed in libraries across the nation, and still others

must be viewed on-site. Availability is indicated by the following codes:

www.ussc.gov Available on Commission’s Internet site at the

address http://www.ussc.gov. See page 3 for details.

SC-Request On request from the Sentencing Commission while

supplies last, then on-site inspection.

SC-Inspect On-site inspection by appointment at the

Sentencing Commission library.

SC-Loan From the Sentencing Commission for 24-hour loan.

GPO From the Government Printing Office for a fee.

RDL Available at GPO Regional Depository Libraries. 

See page 1 for details.

Publisher From private publishers as indicated.

ICPSR From the Inter-University Consortium for Political

and Social Research, University of Michigan (data

only). www.ICPSR.umich.edu/NACJD/archive.html

Address publication inquiries to:

United States Sentencing Commission

Office of Publishing and Public Affairs

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Suite 2-500

Washington, D.C. 20002-8002

pubaffairs@ussc.gov

Publications Request Line: (202) 502-4568
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

3

Information Resources

HelpLine (202–502–4545)

The Commission operates a telephone HelpLine to assist judges, probation

officers, prosecuting and defense attorneys, law clerks, and congressional staff

members with guideline application questions. The HelpLine is open to callers

Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., EST. 

Internet Site – www.ussc.gov

Visitors to the Commission’s web site (www.ussc.gov) at the address

www.ussc.gov can browse as well as download Commission documents and

materials. The site is organized into the following categories: Latest News,

About USSC, Publications, Education and Training, Organizational Guidelines,

Booker/Fanfan Materials, News, Advisory Groups, and Other Items of Interest. 

Sub-categories include Federal Sentencing Statistics, Commission Meeting

Information, Federal Register Notices, Public Meeting Minutes, and Public

Hearing Testimony. The web site provides links to other federal judicial

agencies, and features information about state sentencing commissions and

Commission employment opportunities.

Video and Audio Tapes

Audio and Videotape Sets: Drugs & Violence in America (June 16-18, 1993).

SC-Loan.

These two collections of ten video and nine audio tapes record the

Commission’s symposium on Crime and Punishment in the United States. This

first symposium, Drugs & Violence in America, studied drug abuse and

violence from three perspectives: causation, prevention, and treatment. 

Participants included the Chief Justice of the United States, the Attorney

General, members of Congress, state officials, federal and state judges and

corrections officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Videotape Set: Corporate Crime in America: Strengthening the <Good Citizen’

Corporation (September 7-8, 1995).

SC-Loan.

This collection of ten videotapes records the Commission’s second symposium

on Crime and Punishment in the United States. This corporate crime

symposium focused on changes in corporate and business culture since

sentencing guidelines for organizational offenders became effective in 1991. 
United States Sentencing Commission

4

Symposium presentations also addressed topics and policy issues raised in the

wake of the guidelines’ new emphasis on effective compliance programs.

Instructional Videotapes

The following instructional videotapes are available for short-term loan from

the Commission’s Office of Education and Sentencing Practice by calling (202)

502-4540:

A Conversation With Judge Diana E. Murphy (Chair of the U.S. Sentencing

Commission)

Basic Sentencing Guidelines Application

Multiple Counts Application

Criminal History

Restitution: Determining Victims and Harms

Videotapes highlighting the 1993, 1995, 1997, or 2001 guideline amendments

Public Comment and Official Records

Files of public comment from individuals and organizations. 

SC-Inspect.

Minutes of Commission meetings.

(1992-present — www.ussc.gov; RDL; pre-1992 — SC-Inspect; RDL).

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearing Transcripts.

SC-Inspect; SC-Loan; RDL; www.ussc.gov (August 12, 1996–present).

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearings

Date Location Topic

April 15, 1986 Washington, DC Offense Seriousness

May 22, 1986 Washington, DC Prior Criminal Record

June 10, 1986 Washington, DC Organizational Guidelines

July 15, 1986 Washington, DC Sentencing Options (no transcript)
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearings

5

September 23, 1986 Washington, DC Plea Agreements (no transcript)

October 17, 1986 Chicago, IL Individual Guidelines

October 21, 1986 New York, NY Individual Guidelines

October 29, 1986 Atlanta, GA Individual Guidelines

November 5, 1986 Denver, CO Individual Guidelines

November 18, 1986 San Francisco, CA Individual Guidelines

December 2-3, 1986 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

February 17, 1987 Washington, DC Capital Punishment

March 11-12, 1987 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 22, 1988 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines (no transcript)

October 11, 1988 New York, NY Organizational Guidelines

December 2, 1988 Pasadena, CA Organizational Guidelines

April 7, 1989 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

February 14, 1990 Washington, DC Organizational Guidelines

March 15, 1990 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

December 13, 1990 Washington, DC Organizational Guidelines

March 5, 1991 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

February 25, 1992 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 22, 1993 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

November 9, 1993 Washington, DC Cocaine and Sentencing Policy

March 24, 1994 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 14, 1995 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 11, 1996 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

August 12, 1996 Denver, CO Guideline Simplification
United States Sentencing Commission

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearings

6

March 18, 1997 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

October 15, 1997 Washington, DC Definition of Loss

February 10, 1998 Washington, DC Telemarketing Fraud

March 5, 1998 San Francisco, CA Theft, Fraud, and Tax Crimes

March 12, 1998 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

June 17, 1998 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 23, 2000 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 19, 2001 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

June 19, 2001 Rapid City, SD Native American Issues

February 25-26, 2002 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 19, 2002 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

March 25, 2003 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

August 19, 2003 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

September 23, 2003 Washington, DC The PROTECT Act

October 7, 2003 Washington, DC Organizational Sentencing Guidelines

November 4, 2003 Washington, DC Native American Issues

March 17, 2004 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

November 16-17, 2004 Washington, DC Blakely v. Washington

February 15-16, 2005 Washington, DC Booker/Fanfan

April 12, 2005 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

February 21, 2006 San Antonio, TX Immigration Issues

March 6, 2006 San Diego, CA Immigration Issues

March 15, 2006 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

November 14, 2006 Washington, DC Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearings

7

March 20, 2007 Washington, DC Individual Guidelines

Library Resources

SC-Inspect.

The Commission library, open to the public by appointment (202-502-4500),

contains a collection of publications on criminal justice and sentencing-related

issues.

Guideline Training and Education

www.ussc.gov.

A variety of exercises, visual aids, and other training materials (e.g., worksheets,

articles, court decisions) designed by the Commission are available to the public

via the Commission’s web site: http://www.ussc.gov/training/educat.htm.
United States Sentencing Commission

8

Commission Publications

Guidelines Manuals

The Guidelines Manual (1987-present) contains the official guidelines, policy

statements, and commentary issued by the Sentencing Commission. Prior to

their implementation on November 1, 1987, the Commission issued two drafts

for public comment. Each succeeding edition incorporates amendments

generated during the previous amendment cycle.

Preliminary Draft, Sentencing Guidelines (September 1986). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Revised Draft, Sentencing Guidelines (January 1987). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (Submitted to Congress on

April 13, 1987).

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Effective 11/1/87). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 01/15/88). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 06/15/88). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 10/15/88). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/89). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/90).

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/91).

2 volumes.

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Amendments to the Guidelines Manual Mandated By Public Law 102-141

(Effective 11/27/91).

SC-Request; RDL.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

9

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/92).

2 volumes.

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/93).

2 volumes.

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/94).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/95).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Effective 11/01/96).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/97).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/98).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Supplement to the 1998 Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 05/01/00).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/00).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Supplement to the 2000 Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 05/01/01).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/01).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/02).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Supplement to the 2002 Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 01/25/03).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Supplement to the 2002 Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 01/25/03, 04/30/03,

and 05/30/03).
United States Sentencing Commission

10

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/03).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/04).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/05).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Supplement to the 2005 Guidelines Manual (Amendment effective 03/27/06).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Emergency Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (Amendment effective

09/12/06).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/06).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL; Publisher (GPO, West).

Supplement to the 2006 Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 05/01/07).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/07).

2 volumes.

www.ussc.gov; RDL; Publisher (GPO, West).

Annual Reports and Statistical Sourcebooks

The Commission’s Annual Report has increased in size and coverage since

being introduced in 1986. It reports on Commission activities and research data

covering the fiscal year ending prior to publication. The Annual

Report includes a Commission overview, discussion of recent amendments to

the sentencing guidelines and current legal issues, and (for the years 1988–1995)

extensive data on sentencing guideline application in the form of tables and

graphics.

Annual Report (1986–present).

www.ussc.gov (1995-present); SC-Request; SC-Inspect; RDL.

Sourcebook of Sentencing Statistics (1996–present).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

11

Beginning in 1996, the descriptive statistics portion of the Annual Report was

placed in this companion volume. The book contains demographic data on

individual defendants, guideline application, organizational sentencing

practices, and sentencing appeals. In addition, it provides selected district,

circuit, and national sentencing data.

Reports to Congress

Supplementary Report on the Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements

(June 18, 1987). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This report supplements and further explains the sentencing guidelines, policy

statements, and related commentary submitted to Congress on

April 13, 1987, along with the technical, conforming, and clarifying amendments

submitted on May 1, 1987. It also provides a brief historical overview of the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a summary of the Commission’s guidelines

development process, and an analysis of the expected effects of the guidelines

and related legislation on federal correctional resource requirements.

Statutory Penalties Project Description and Compilations of Federal Criminal

Offenses – Preliminary Report to the Congress (November 1, 1989). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

The Sentencing Commission is charged with reviewing penalty provisions of

federal criminal statutes and suggesting appropriate changes. This report is

organized into three sections. The first organizes federal statutes into 18

generic crime groups by title and section of the U.S. Code. The second

organizes the statutes into 18 generic crime groups according to the maximum

penalty contained in each statute. The third organizes all statutes that fall

within one of the most frequently prosecuted offense types according to the

maximum penalty for the offense.

Supplementary Report to the Congress: Statutory Penalty Review Project

(February 13, 1991). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This report identifies four groups of statutory penalties that appear inconsistent

with the goals of sentencing reform as identified in the 1984 Act: (1) Offenses in

Deprivation of Civil Rights, (2) Assault, (3) The Travel Act, and (4) Involuntary

Manslaughter. In general, the report makes recommendations designed to

remove various impediments created by statutory maximum penalties.
United States Sentencing Commission

12

Special Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal

Criminal Justice System (August 1991).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; Publisher (West); RDL.

This report responds to a statutory directive that the Commission examine the

compatibility of the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum penalties,

the effect of mandatory minimums on the federal system, and congressional

alternatives to mandatory minimums for directing sentencing policy. It

includes an historical overview of mandatory minimum penalties in the federal

system, a synopsis of the development of guideline sentencing, and a detailed

empirical study of mandatory minimums. The study uses individual defendant

data of the Sentencing Commission as well as data collected for use in the

Commission’s evaluation study.

Supplementary Report on Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations

(August 30, 1991). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

This report supplements the sentencing guidelines for organizational

defendants (Chapter Eight of the Guidelines Manual, effective November 1,

1991). It addresses guideline background, structure, underlying rationale,

empirical bases, and significant estimated effects. Chapter One discusses

Commission procedures in developing the organizational guidelines. Chapter

Two addresses the Commission’s resolution of major issues. Chapter Three

examines the structure of past practice for fines imposed on organizations, the

magnitude of average fines imposed, and the probable effect of the guidelines

on the level of fines.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Report on the Operation of the Guidelines

System and Short-Term Impacts on Disparity in Sentencing, Use of Incarceration, and

Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining (December 1991) 2 volumes and

Executive Summary.

SC-Request; RDL.

This report fulfills a requirement in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that the

Commission study the impact of the guidelines on the criminal justice system

four years after their implementation. The study examines the impact of the

guidelines on prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, disparities in

sentencing, and the use of incarceration. 

Study results were based on data obtained from interviews conducted with

judges and federal court practitioners as well as data from the Federal Bureau

of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys,

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Sentencing Commission.

Analysis of Sentencing-Related Provisions of S. 2305 and H.R. 3371 Conference Report

Crime Bills (Spring 1992).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

13

SC-Request; RDL.

This report analyzes and compares two crime bills considered during the 102nd

Congress: S. 2305, introduced by Senator Thurmond in 1992, and H.R. 3371, a

conference bill that passed the House of Representatives in October 1991 but

never came to a vote in the Senate. The report includes suggested technical

modifications along with general recommendations regarding the proposed

legislation.

Analysis of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R. 3355)

(February 22 and June 8, 1994).

SC-Request; RDL.

This two-part report, prepared at the request of the chairmen of two House

Judiciary Subcommittees, analyzes and offers recommendations regarding key

provisions in the Senate and House versions of the crime bill. It includes

analyses of the bill’s “three strikes,” mandatory minimum “safety valve,” and

enhanced firearm penalty provisions along with prison impact assessments.

Report to Congress on the Maximum Utilization of Prison Resources

(June 30, 1994).

SC-Request; RDL.

In response to a directive in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Sentencing

Commission and the Federal Bureau of Prisons jointly prepared this report

which examines: (1) the modernization of existing facilities; (2) the use of

existing federal and other surplus facilities; and (3) inmate classification and

periodic review of such classification for use in placing inmates in the least

restrictive facility necessary to ensure adequate security. Examining key

programs, the report discusses inmate employment, alternatives to

incarceration, “boot camps,” drug treatment, family issues, and literacy and

education.

Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy

(February 1995).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This report responds to a statutory directive that the Commission examine

federal sentencing policy as it relates to powder and crack cocaine and make

recommendations for appropriate changes. The report examines the

pharmacology, methods of use, and public health impact of cocaine; the drug’s

effects on society; cocaine distribution and marketing; cocaine’s relationship to

crime; the legislative history of cocaine penalties and constitutional challenges;

and data related to federal drug offenders. The study includes a thorough

review of available research, an analysis of cocaine sentences imposed under

the sentencing guidelines, and recommendations that the Commission and the
United States Sentencing Commission

14

Congress make appropriate adjustments to the guidelines and the underlying

statutes.

Report to the Congress: Adequacy of Penalties for the Intentional Exposure of Others,

through Sexual Activity, to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus

(March 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

In response to a statutory directive, the Commission reported on whether

revisions to the sentencing guidelines were needed to accommodate offenses

involving willful exposure to HIV. The report examines (1) the operation of the

guidelines given the absence of a specific federal statute punishing the

intentional transmission of HIV; (2) cases sentenced in fiscal year 1993 to

determine the frequency with which HIV exposure was an issue at sentencing;

and (3) pertinent case law.

Report to the Congress: Adequacy of Penalties for Fraud Offenses Involving Elderly

Victims (March 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report responds to a congressional directive to review the adequacy of

victim-related guideline adjustments for fraud offenses against older victims. 

The report includes (1) an overview of the legislative history leading to the

statutory directive; (2) a discussion of the operation of the relevant sentencing

guidelines and policy statements; (3) an examination of case law; and (4) an

empirical analysis of relevant sentencing data.

Report to the Congress: Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases

(March 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

Responding to a statutory directive, this report (1) compares federal sentences

for cases in which the rape victim is known to the defendant with cases in

which the victim is not known; (2) compares federal sentences for cases

involving offenses occurring on federal territory with sentences in surrounding

states; and (3) analyzes the effect of rape sentences on populations residing in

federal territory. The report discusses relevant sentencing guidelines,

compares federal and state penalties for sexual assault, and analyzes

Sentencing Commission sexual abuse data.

Analysis of the Sentencing-Related Provisions of the Senate Committee Print of the

Immigration Reform Act of 1995 (Winter 1996).

SC-Request; RDL.

This report analyzes the principal criminal penalty provisions of the Senate

Committee Print of the Immigration Reform Act of 1995. The analysis was

prepared in response to a January 24, 1996, request from Senator Edward M.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

15

Kennedy, the ranking minority member of the Senate Immigration

Subcommittee. The report includes recommendations for changes to the bill to

more fully achieve the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 

Report to the Congress: Sex Offenses Against Children (June 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report analyzes all 1994 and 1995 cases involving sexual abuse, child

pornography, or the promotion of illegal sexual contact. The report responds to

a congressional directive in the Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of

1995. Pertinent statutory provisions are analyzed and recommendations are

presented. 

Report to the Congress: Adequacy of Federal Sentencing Guideline Penalties for

Computer Fraud and Vandalism Offenses (June 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report responds to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996’s directive to review the deterrent effect of existing guidelines as they

apply to various computer crimes. The Commission reviewed its data on

guideline convictions under the pertinent statute, conducted a search to

determine whether any recidivism had occurred, developed a profile of a

“typical offender,” and conducted a literature review of deterrence studies of

“white collar” crime.

Special Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (April 1997).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report contains Sentencing Commission recommendations regarding

penalties for powder and crack cocaine. The report, made pursuant to a

congressional directive, recommends that the current penalty differential for

federal powder and crack cases be reduced by changing quantity levels that

trigger mandatory minimum penalties for both powder and crack. 

Recommended are a range of possible options to adjust both powder and crack

penalties. Appended to this report is Vice Chairman Gelacak’s Concurring

Opinion.

Report to the Congress: Sentencing Policy for Money Laundering Offenses, Including

Comments on Department of Justice Report (September 18, 1997).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report responds to a congressional directive to comment on the

Department of Justice’s report on federal prosecutorial charging and plea

practices affecting money laundering. In the report, the Commission reported

that the broad and inconsistent use of money laundering penalties, coupled
United States Sentencing Commission

16

with an inflexible, arbitrarily determined guideline structure, is resulting in

substantial unwarranted disparity and disproportionality. 

Report to the Congress: Telemarketing Fraud Offenses–Explanation of Recent

Guideline Amendments (October 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was submitted in response to the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention

Act of 1998. It includes an explanation of actions taken by the Commission to

promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties

for persons convicted of offenses relating to the conduct of telemarketing. It

also estimates the impact of the amendments described in the report.

Report to the Congress: MDMA Drug Offenses: Explanation of Recent Guideline

Amendments (May 2001).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was submitted to Congress pursuant to section 3663(e) of the

Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000. The report provides a brief explanation

of the guideline amendments promulgated pursuant to the Act, looks at the

estimated impact of these amendments, and includes a brief history of the drug

and associated health hazards.

Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (May 2002).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was compiled to contribute to the ongoing assessment of federal

cocaine sentencing policy by Congress and others in the criminal justice

system. The report updates and supplements much of the research and data

presented in the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 1995 and 1997 reports on

cocaine sentencing policy. The report recommends that Congress adopt a

three-pronged approach for revising federal cocaine penalties.

Report to the Congress: Increased Penalties Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(January 2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was submitted in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which

requires the Commission to expeditiously consider the promulgation of new

sentencing guidelines or amendments to existing guidelines to provide an

enhancement for officers or directors of publicly traded corporations who

commit fraud and related offenses. The report also details the Commission’s

response to directives generally pertaining to fraud and obstruction of justice.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

17

Report to the Congress: Increased Penalties for Cyber Security Offenses

(May 2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was submitted pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002

which required the Commission to explain actions taken in response to the

Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002. In developing its response to the Act,

the Commission analyzed sentencing data, reviewed relevant case law and

legislative history, and solicited and considered commentary from the criminal

justice community.

Report to the Congress: Increased Penalties for Campaign Finance Offenses and

Legislative Recommendations (May 2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was submitted pursuant to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002 which required to Commission to promulgate a guideline for penalties for

violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Commission

promulgated an emergency temporary amendment effective January 25, 2003. 

The guideline was repromulgated as a permanent amendment in March 2003

and, subject to congressional review, will become effective November 1, 2003.

Report to Congress: Downward Departures from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

(October 2003).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This report was submitted in direct response to the PROTECT Act and as part

of the Commission’s 15-year review of the federal sentencing guidelines. The

report identifies specific congressional concerns regarding departure decisions

and evaluates departure provisions throughout the Guidelines Manual in light

of both general and specific concerns.

Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (May 2007).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This is the Commission's fourth report to Congress on the subject of federal

cocaine sentencing policy. The report updates much of the data and

information contained in previous Commission reports and provides

recommendations to Congress for modifications to the statutory penalty

structure for federal cocaine offenses.

Legal Briefs

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae in Mistretta v.

United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). 
United States Sentencing Commission

18

SC-Inspect; RDL.

Mistretta involved four separation of powers issues as well as a contention that

Congress had excessively delegated its legislative authority. In its amicus brief,

the Sentencing Commission principally argued that (1) the structure of the

Commission was not violative of separation of powers provisions and did not

involve any congressional self-aggrandizement;

(2) neither the executive nor the judicial branches are disrupted by the

delegation of the Commission to the judiciary; (3) the mixed composition of the

Commission does not violate separation of powers because judges may take

part in extra-judicial tasks, and the prohibition against sharing the “judicial

power of the United States” with the executive branch is inapplicable; and (4)

removal powers granted to the President in no way threaten the tenure or salary

of the judges.

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae in United States

v. Lopez, 938 F.2d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

In this brief, submitted at the request of the court, the Commission contended

that (1) a court could not set aside a sentencing guideline or policy statement

for failure of the Commission to articulate adequately the basis and purpose of

the provision, and (2) the Commission had provided an appropriate statement of

reasons for its guidelines and policy statements. The Commission illustrated

the reasons why the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) did not apply to the

Sentencing Commission, with the exception of two individual provisions found

within 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) dealing with publication and public hearing procedures. 

The Commission asserted that it need only support its guideline decisions with

a “report [to Congress] stating the reasons for the Commission’s

recommendations.”

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae in United States

v. Bell, 991 F.2d 1445 (8th Cir. 1993).

SC-Inspect; RDL.

The United States Sentencing Commission filed a brief of amicus curiae in

support of the Government’s position as appellant that the ex post facto clause

is not applicable to sentencing guideline amendments. The Commission’s brief

contended that the guidelines themselves are not laws and therefore not subject

to ex post facto restrictions because (1) the procedure through which guideline

amendments are promulgated involves no legislative action; (2) judges retain

discretion to sentence outside the guidelines as a result of a flexible departure

standard; and (3) the guidelines do not reclassify substantive crimes but are

based on statutory offense categories.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

19

Memorandum of Law by the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

in United States v. McLellan, Criminal Action No. 1:91-CR-326A-01 (JOF) (N.D.GA.

1995).

SC-Inspect.

In this case, the defendant moved to invalidate the U.S. Sentencing

Commission and the sentencing guidelines on separation of powers grounds. 

The defendant contended that the Supreme Court decision in Mistretta v. U.S.

resolved only the facial validity of the Sentencing Reform Act and that,

irrespective of the Court’s decision, the Commission’s actions in implementing

the Act had violated the separation of powers doctrine. In its memorandum of

law as amicus curiae, the Commission argued that in resolving conflicts of

sentencing law among the federal circuits, advising Congress on sentencing

issues, and conducting studies of sentencing issues, it was fulfilling duties

mandated by the Act. These duties were all found to be proper for the

Commission in Mistretta, and thus the Commission was in no way stepping

outside the bounds of its constitutional role in fulfilling them.

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae in Support of

Petitioner, United States of America in U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan, 543 U.S. 220

(2005).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This brief argues that the imposition of a guidelines sentence based on a

judge’s determination of a fact neither found by a jury nor admitted by a

defendant does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. It argues that unlike the Washington sentencing scheme

considered in Blakely v. Washington, the federal guidelines do not alter the

statutorily prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is

exposed. Instead, the federal guidelines assign weights to traditional

sentencing factors within statutory constraints. The brief also argues that the

maximum sentence a federal judge may impose based on a jury verdict or facts

admitted by a defendant is the statutory maximum set by Congress in the

relevant federal statute, and any additional facts found by a judge at sentencing

pursuant to the federal guidelines cannot increase a sentence beyond the

statutory maximum set by Congress.

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae in Support of

Respondent, United States of America in Claiborne v. United States and Rita v. United

States, Nos. 06-5618 & 06-5754 (filed January 22, 2007).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

On January 22, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission filed an amicus

curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the

United States in Claiborne v. United States and Rita v. United States. The brief

argues that the courts of appeal are correct to accord a presumption of

reasonableness to a guideline sentence as the guidelines are the product of a

comprehensive and collaborative process that implements the directives in the
United States Sentencing Commission

20

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Act, the brief argues, has guided the

Commission in integrating the purposes of sentencing into a workable

sentencing structure. The brief states that, as instructed by Congress, the

Commission, in creating categories of common offense and offender

characteristics, has carefully considered the factors specified in 18 U.S.C.

3553(a) that a sentencing judge must consider in imposing a sentence.

Policy Development Team & Working Group Reports

Inter-disciplinary panels of Commission staff (“working groups” and policy

development teams) produce reports and documents on specific topic areas

identified by commissioners. The groups study specific guideline issues,

identify areas of concern, and make recommendations to the Commission.

Criminal Livelihood Working Group Report (March 23, 1988).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This report examines various issues relevant to the criminal livelihood

guideline (§4B1.3), including (1) difficulties in applying the guideline,

(2) the guideline’s impact on lower-income petty offenders, and (3) the point at

which the guideline is calculated (i.e., before or after calculation of Acceptance

of Responsibility). The working group analyzed legislative history,

constitutional issues, Commission data, and possible modifications to the

guideline.

Career Offender Guidelines Working Group Report (March 25, 1988).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This report examined career offender guideline questions (§§4B1.1 and 4B1.2)

arising from hotline calls and a training survey. The working group also

examined a Seventh Circuit case that raised issues of “ambiguity” in the

guidelines. The working group report includes a review of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e) and the career offender guideline, examining the development, the

legislative history, and the operation of the statute and the guideline. The

report examines specific career offender guideline issues and proposals.

Bank Robbery Working Group Report (March 29, 1989).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group report includes (1) an analysis of preguidelines sentencing

practice for bank robbery offenses drawn from the 1985 augmented FPSSIS

data, designed to permit Commission comparison between past practice and the

guidelines; (2) an analysis of time served by offenders in cases involving

unarmed robbery of one bank in which no deaths, injuries, or abductions

occurred and the offender had no prior adult convictions and did not warrant
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

21

consideration as a minor participant or a leader; and (3) an analysis of key

offense and offender characteristics of 146 bank robbery cases sentenced under

the guidelines.

Drugs, Firearms, and Violent Offenses Working Group Report

(December 18, 1989).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group, in assessing areas for proposed amendments, consulted

current and pending legislation, hotline calls, Commission sentencing data,

case law, public comment, Department of Justice proposals, and information

from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The report recommends

restructuring the arson guideline (§2K1.4) to raise the base offense level and to

address the more mainstream arson cases. In addition, it recommends

clarification of the application notes for drug guidelines 2D1.1 and 2D1.2. 

Following its review of the firearms guidelines, the group proposed amending

guideline 2K2.1 to cover violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The group also

proposed changes to the murder-for-hire guideline for conspiracy or solicitation

to murder and recommended restructuring the guideline covering assault with

intent to commit murder (§2A.1.1).

Revocation Working Group Report (December 18, 1989).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group’s goal was the development of guidelines for violations of

probation and supervised release that would replace the policy statements in

Chapter Seven of the Guidelines Manual. The group reviewed existing policy

statements, relevant literature, legislative history, statistical data,

recommendations from the Department of Justice, and an internal draft of

proposed guidelines for violation and revocation procedures.

Criminal History Working Group Report (December 20, 1989).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group analyzed issues regarding the addition of a Criminal

History Category VII to the sentencing table and reviewed data on the

distribution of criminal history points and departures due to adequacy of

criminal history. The group also analyzed issues regarding the assignment of

criminal history points to uncounseled misdemeanor convictions and reviewed

practices and policies with respect to counting such convictions for criminal

history purposes.

Role in the Offense Working Group Report (January 4, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group evaluated the operation of the role in the offense guidelines: 

guideline 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role – particularly the organizer-leader-
United States Sentencing Commission

22

supervisor-manager distinction and the “otherwise extensive” provision) and

guideline 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role – particularly the treatment of relative

culpability of defendants). The working group analyzed potential problems in

the application of these guidelines by examining preguidelines cases,

Commission data, case files, appellate case law, and departure cases.

Working Group Report on Child Pornography, Obscenity Offenses, and Hate Crimes

(January 16, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group reviewed a broad range of resources in considering

potential amendments to the guidelines for offenses involving prostitution,

sexual exploitation of minors, obscenity, and civil rights. The report contains a

collection of relevant statutes, discusses the legislative history, digests data

from Commission case files, and discusses court decisions. The report also

reviews guideline application issues originating from hotline calls and public

comment on proposed guideline amendments. 

Aliens Working Group Report (October 18, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group studied guidelines pertaining to violations of immigration,

naturalization, and passport laws (§§2L1.1, 2L2.1, and 2L2.3). The group found

that the specific offense characteristic in each of these guidelines, based on

whether the defendant previously had been convicted of the same or a similar

offense, was not an adequate measure of the scope of the offense. The working

group considered public comment and studied pertinent case files to construct

an alternative set of specific offense characteristics for those guidelines. Based

on its case analysis, the working group suggested that a more direct measure of

the scope of the offense would be tables listing offense levels based on the

number of individuals or documents involved in the offense.

Drug Working Group Report – Listed Chemicals (November 13, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group examined the Chemical Diversion Trafficking Act,

21 U.S.C. § 841(d), to develop recommendations for guideline sanctions against

conduct proscribed by the Act. The group summarized the legislative history of

the Act and its primary listed chemical offenses, profiled offenders and cases

brought under the Act, reviewed Commission data, summarized appellate case

law, and proposed two guideline amendment options.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

23

Working Group Report on Category 0/VII (November 20, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group examined the feasibility and consequences of expanding

the sentencing table to include a Criminal History Category VII and creating a

new category for “first offender.” By analyzing Commission data and case law,

the group profiled defendants who might fall under Criminal History

Categories 0 and VII. The group explored theoretical and practical

considerations involved in defining “first offender” and surveyed the potential

impact of various options.

Bank Robbery Working Group Report (December 10, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

To inform the Commission about potential amendment options, the working

group explored three issues of concern about the way in which offenders are

sentenced pursuant to the robbery guideline: (1) Are offense levels for unarmed

bank robbery too low? (2) Are the enhancements for weapon use sufficient?

(3) Should an enhancement be provided for bank robberies committed but that

do not lead to a conviction?

The group studied Commission data, hotline reports, appellate court decisions,

nationwide data provided by the FBI, and input from practitioners.

Firearms and Explosive Materials Working Group Report (December 11, 1990).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group studied the firearms and explosives guidelines by reviewing

Commission data, case files, and appellate decisions and by soliciting input

from appropriate agencies and interested parties. The group proposed

combining a number of firearms and explosives guidelines to eliminate

duplication and confusion in application and to incorporate additional specific

offense characteristics.

Acceptance of Responsibility Working Group Report (October 16, 1991). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group undertook a broad examination of the acceptance of

responsibility guideline (§3E1.1) in response to a request from the Criminal Law

Committee of the Judicial Conference for additional mitigation at higher

offense levels. The group focused specifically on (1) whether the guideline was

being interpreted and applied consistently across the country; (2) whether the

guideline provided an appropriate offense level reduction; (3) whether the

guideline needed to differentiate more precisely among defendants; and (4)

whether factors that the guideline did not consider would help a court

determine when the reduction was warranted.
United States Sentencing Commission

24

Criminal History Working Group Report: Category 0, Category VII, Career Offender

(October 17, 1991). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group examined (1) the possible modification of criminal history

categories by adding a Category 0 and/or Category VII and

(2) factors to narrow or expand the applicability of the career offender guideline. 

The group explored various methods of defining a “first offender” (a possible

criterion for Criminal History Category 0). The group also examined the data to

develop the criminal history point boundary for Category VI to define eligibility

for a new Category VII. A supplemental report was submitted February 21,

1992.

Preliminary Report to the Commission: Staff Working Group on Alternatives

(October 23, 1991). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

In 1990, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Alternatives to

Imprisonment Project chaired by Commissioner Helen G. Corrothers submitted

reports to the Commission recommending an increase in the number of

existing intermediate punishments, an expansion of the pool of eligible

defendants, and a general increase in district courts’ flexibility in sentencing

certain offenders. This working group undertook a coordinated assessment of

the two reports and examined written comments and public hearing testimony

about alternatives.

Child Sex Offense Working Group Report (December 1991). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to amend guidelines for

offenses involving sexual crimes against children if the Commission

determined that current penalties were inadequate. In response, the child sex

offense working group conducted a study of sentences for sexual abuse,

kidnapping, and pornography cases.

Drug Working Group Report (March 27, 1992).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The working group reviewed a broad range of information as it considered

possible amendments to guidelines for relevant conduct, mitigating role in the

offense, drug trafficking offenses, and renting or managing a drug

establishment. To assist the Commission’s consideration of these issues, the

working group reviewed approximately 1,500 case files to profile sentencing

drug defendants and identify offense characteristics that relate to mitigating

role adjustments. The group analyzed the impact of prosecutorial selection of

statutes that contain a lesser statutory maximum. As part of this analysis, the

group profiled so-called “courier” and “mule” cases to examine the relationship
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

25

between this offense behavior and the application of the mitigating role

adjustment. The data were organized to permit modeling of the impact of

potential amendment options.

Money Laundering Working Group Report (October 14, 1992). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

This report addresses whether the money laundering guidelines appropriately

reflect offense seriousness. The working group held meetings with

practitioners and analyzed computer data drawn from actual case files. 

Evidence indicated that offense levels for money laundering counts varied

significantly from offense levels for the underlying counts (e.g., drug trafficking

or a fraudulent scheme). A high percentage of offenders convicted of money

laundering also were involved in the underlying crime, which suggests that

money laundering was incidental to the underlying conduct. However, the

guideline offense level for money laundering in drug cases exceeded that for

the underlying conduct 52.5 percent of the time and 96 percent of the time in

non-drug cases. The group analyzed ways of aligning these levels.

Violent Crimes/Firearms/Gangs Working Group Report (October 14, 1992).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group examined (1) whether or not present guideline penalties for

these offense types were adequate and (2) specific application problems

associated with these guidelines. The purpose of the gang study was to

examine issues pertinent to incorporating gang membership and gang crime as

sentencing factors.

The group conducted a systematic study of the offenses against the person and

the revised firearm guidelines. The study included computer analyses of

Commission data, an analysis of published court opinions dealing with the

pertinent guidelines, an examination of emerging questions and problems

directed to the Commission, and input from practitioners. The gang study

included a literature review, a survey of state sentencing commissions, and a

review of pertinent case law. The group issued an addendum to this report

March 30, 1993.

Report of the Drugs/Role/Harmonization Working Group (November 10, 1992).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The primary focus of this working group was the current quantity-driven drug

guideline. Its principal task was to explore alternative means of distinguishing

drug offenses and offenders on bases other than drug quantity. The group also

reviewed relevant case law to identify additional potential areas of interest

concerning the drug and role guidelines, with the primary objective of

identifying circuit court conflicts about guideline application.
United States Sentencing Commission

26

The group examined the language and legislative history of the 1986 Anti-Drug

Abuse Act, conducted empirical research using Commission data, examined

hotline information, and reviewed state sentencing guidelines for drug

trafficking offenders. The group issued on April 1, 1993, an addendum

reporting on its case review project.

Juvenile Offenders Working Group Report (November 10, 1992). 

SC-Request; RDL.

The impetus for this working group was a statutory directive requiring the

Commission to “study the feasibility of developing guidelines for the

disposition of juvenile delinquents.” The report summarizes the group’s

progress to date following its analysis of available data. The report references

a Supreme Court case, United States v. R.L.C., which held that the maximum

sentence for juvenile delinquents is set by the guidelines. The group suggests

an amendment incorporating this holding and deleting a current policy

statement, 5H1.1 – age, which states that the guidelines do not apply to “a

person sentenced as a juvenile delinquent under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§ 5037.”

White Collar Crime Working Group Report (April 1993).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This working group considered issues relating to guidelines governing various

economic offenses, including property, fraud, antitrust, and tax offenses. The

report focuses primarily on theft and fraud issues on the one hand and tax

issues on the other. With respect to theft and fraud, the report discusses

reliance on loss as a primary determinant of offense severity, the guideline

definition of loss, calibration of the loss tables, consolidation of the theft and

fraud guidelines, enhancement for more than minimal planning, and the abuse

of trust adjustment. With respect to tax, the major areas of inquiry cover the

impact on tax offenses of the expanded availability of non-prison sentences,

simplification of the tax guidelines, and tax offenses involving illegally derived

income. 

Computer Fraud Working Group Report (September 8, 1993).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The Computer Fraud Working Group studied the effectiveness of the fraud

guideline and related guidelines on computer fraud offenses. To accomplish

this, the working group met with interested parties, conducted an empirical

analysis of cases sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and reviewed public

comment, legislative history, case law, relevant literature, and hotline calls. 

Based on this review, the group recommended that the Commission not adopt

a new guideline for computer offenses, but instead revise the loss commentary

in the fraud guideline and explore whether other guidelines might be more

appropriate for certain offenses. The report also includes suggestions
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

27

regarding amendments to fraud guideline commentary. A working group

report summary is also available from the Commission.

Public Corruption Working Group Report (September 8, 1993).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The Public Corruption Working Group was charged with examining

sentencing practices under the public corruption guidelines. The review,

which included an examination of approximately 300 public corruption cases,

identified a number of topics involving application of the public corruption

guidelines that warranted examination: (1) a structural issue that involved the

scope of application of the guidelines; (2) issues involving application of

guideline adjustments in complex cases; and (3) an issue concerning the

appropriateness of departures on grounds of collateral consequences.

Food and Drug Working Group Preliminary Report (February 1994).

SC-Loan; RDL.

The Food and Drug Working Group was established to conduct a two-year

assessment of the feasibility of formulating organizational guidelines for

offenses involving food, drugs, and agricultural products (§2N2.1). The group’s

preliminary report includes (1) an overview of the pertinent guideline and the

most commonly prosecuted offenses sentenced under it; (2) an analysis of food

and drug cases involving individuals sentenced under guideline 2N2.1 during

fiscal years 1991 and 1992; (3) a description of food and drug cases involving

organizational defendants sentenced under preguidelines law; and (4) an

analysis of significant application issues.

Money Laundering Working Group Report (February 28, 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This follow-up to an October 1992 report reviews the history of the money

laundering guidelines, summarizes the earlier report, and updates case law

and other relevant information available since the 1992 report. A working

group report summary is also available from the Commission.

Food and Drug Working Group Report (February 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This update to a February 1994 report includes an overview of guideline 2N2.1

and the most commonly prosecuted crimes sentenced under it, provides a

description and analysis of food and drug cases involving individuals

sentenced under guideline 2N2.1 in fiscal years 1991-93, and describes food

and drug cases involving organizational defendants sentenced under

preguidelines law.
United States Sentencing Commission

28

Federal Court Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ Substantial

Assistance to the Government (May 1997).

SC-Loan; SC-Inspect.

This working group report studies the policies and practices associated with

the application of the substantial assistance policy statement. Topics include

(1) substantial assistance across districts; (2) caseload composition and trial

rates; (3) the characteristics of defendants who cooperate with authorities and

the type of assistance offered; (4) sentences for codefendants; and (5) the

prosecutorial and judicial roles.

Loss Issues Working Paper (October 14, 1997).

SC-Loan; RDL.

This memorandum discusses issues raised about the definition of loss in the

case law, in training, and on the Commission’s HelpLine, and presents some

general options to address those issues to achieve greater sentencing

uniformity and predictability. The paper also incorporates input received from

various advisory groups.

Manslaughter Working Group Report (December 15, 1997).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report studies the voluntary and involuntary manslaughter guidelines to

determine whether the current penalties are appropriate relative to other

violent offenses. The working group examined three years of Commission

sentencing data (FY 94-96), reviewed legal and social science literature on

manslaughter, compared federal sentencing standards with the practices of

selected states, and conducted a public hearing at which experts on

manslaughter testified. The report presents options to amend the guidelines

for Commission consideration.

Telemarketing Fraud Working Group Report (January 1998).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This report studies telemarketing fraud offenses in conjunction with the

Commission’s multi-year comprehensive assessment of the fraud and related

guidelines. The report provides a legislative history of the relevant statutes

and guidelines, assesses guideline application issues affected by telemarketing

fraud enhancements, and examines the scope and nature of the telemarketing

fraud issue.

A Field Test of Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Loss in the Theft and Fraud

Guidelines: A Report to the Commission (October 20, 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

29

This report presents the results of a survey of 22 federal judges and 21

probation officers about the definition of loss in the theft and fraud guidelines. 

In this field test, each judge was given the proposed definition and was asked

to apply it, with the assistance of a probation officer, to theft and fraud cases. 

Judges completed survey instruments on 121 randomly selected and 107

participant-selected cases.

No Electronic Theft Act Policy Development Team Report (February 1999).

SC-Loan; www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report analyzes the legislative history of the No Electronic Theft Act,

reviews the history of sentencing guideline 2B5.3 (Criminal Infringement of

Copyright or Trademark), reviews public comment on electronic theft,

presents an empirical analysis of cases sentenced under §2B5.3, examines the

literature on the topic, and discusses relevant state law and federal regulations.

Methamphetamine Final Report (November 1999).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This is the final report of the Commission’s Methamphetamine Policy Team

regarding the implementation of the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty

Enhancement Act of 1998. The report examines the methamphetamine

problem in the United States, summarizes the statutory and sentencing

guideline history for federal methamphetamine offenses, discusses

characteristics of methamphetamine offenders, and outlines policy options for

responding to the act.

Identity Theft Final Report (December 15, 1999).

www.ussc.gov: RDL.

This report details the legislative history of the Identity Theft and Assumption

Deterrence Act of 1998, analyzes the key provisions of the statute, and assesses

its impact upon existing sentencing guidelines. The report also presents

analyses of Commission data and assesses preliminary policy options for

Commission consideration.

Sentencing for the Possession or Use of Firearms During a Crime (January 6, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report examines the guidelines’ approach to sentencing for possession or

use of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. The

report provides an introduction to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and recent Supreme Court

decisions and legislation relevant to the statute. 
United States Sentencing Commission

30

Cellular Telephone Cloning Final Report (January 25, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report, produced by the Commission’s Economic Crimes Policy Team,

addresses the development of policy options for implementing the directives

contained in the Wireless Telephone Protection Act. The report also presents

background on the issue and the teams’s analysis and findings.

Sentencing Federal Sexual Offenders: Protection of Children from Sexual Predators

Act of 1998 (February 17, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report was produced to assist the Commission in developing possible

responses to the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998. 

This act contains directives to the Commission to review relevant guidelines

and provide appropriate enhancements while ensuring reasonable consistency

among the guidelines and avoiding duplicative punishment.

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Policy Team (December 4, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report addresses the statutes and guidelines for nuclear, biological, and

chemical weapons importation and exportation offenses. It provides extensive

background materials, including an analysis of pertinent legislative history

and Commission data, a case review, and a proportional comparison of national

defense guidelines with other types of offenses.

Steroids Policy Team Report (March 2006).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report sets forth legislative and guideline history pertaining to steroids

offenses, discusses the Commission’s response to legislation, and updates the

findings of the Commission’s 1990 steroids report.

Intellectual Property Policy Team Report (May 2006).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This report focuses on the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (“the

Act”), the Intellectual Property Protection and Court Amendment Act of 2005

(“IPPCA Act”), and the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7704. The Commission

acted upon directives contained in the Act by amending, pursuant to

emergency authority, the intellectual property guideline, USSG section 2B5.3,

effective October 24, 2005, and promulgating that amendment as permanent.

The Commission also promulgated guideline amendments stemming from the

IPPCA Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

31

Staff Discussion Papers

The Sentencing Reform Act (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This staff discussion paper provides an overview of the principal purposes and

features of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA). The principal SRA

provisions which shape and constrain drafting of the sentencing guidelines are

described. The paper also generally describes Congress’s direction to the

Commission to consider a variety of identified offense and offender

characteristics and to achieve desired levels of severity for particular

categories of defendants. Finally, the paper enumerates congressional

directives enacted subsequent to the SRA that further limit Commission

amendment discretion.

Relevant Conduct (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This staff discussion paper examines the tension between real-offense and

charge-offense sentencing and the Commission’s response to it: the relevant

conduct guideline. The paper discusses the federal criminal code and the ways

in which the code and the Sentencing Reform Act eliminate the possibility of a

pure offense of conviction sentencing system. The paper reviews the history of

the relevant conduct guideline, presents criticisms of the guideline, and

discusses state counterparts. Finally, the paper outlines broad options to

address these issues.

Level of Detail in Chapter Two (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This paper focuses on the 151 offense guidelines in Chapter Two of the

Guidelines Manual. The paper discusses the choices the Commission made

about (1) the factors important to sentencing; (2) the assignment of a specific

weight to a base offense level or a specific offense characteristic (SOC); (3)

cross reference determinations; and (4) departure decisions. Data is presented

on the frequency of guideline use, specific offense characteristics, cross

references, and adjustments. The paper concludes with a list of options for

modifying the level of detail in Chapter Two.

Chapter Three Adjustments (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This staff discussion paper examines the major policy issues in Chapter Three

of the Guidelines Manual (except for “Part D - Multiple Counts” which is the

topic of a separate report) by reviewing data, case law, hotline calls, training

experiences, and pertinent literature. The aim of this paper is to explain (1)
United States Sentencing Commission

32

why Chapter Three includes certain adjustments; (2) how the adjustments are

working; (3) criticisms of these adjustments; and (4) some options that would

simplify or improve the present structure and operation of Chapter Three

guidelines.

Criminal History (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This staff discussion paper has three components: (1) policy issues regarding

the ability of the current criminal history score to adequately distinguish

between offenders; (2) an outline of several issues that create guideline

application problems; and (3) alternative criminal history measures that may

improve the current guidelines.

Departures and Offender Characteristics (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This paper analyzes departures and offender characteristics under the

guidelines and includes a discussion of pertinent sections of the applicable

statutory directives and their legislative history, an examination of the way in

which the Commission executed those directives, and a review of empirical

information on current departure practice and appellate review standards. The

report also contains summaries of criticisms of the manner in which

departures and offender characteristics are handled under the guidelines, and

a description of the way some state systems treat departures and offender

characteristics. Finally, the paper offers options for change that could simplify

and improve the operation of guidelines relevant to these issues.

Multiple Counts (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This staff discussion paper reviews the guidelines’ multiple count rules

(Chapter Three, Part D). These rules were developed to provide appropriate

incremental punishment for defendants convicted of multiple offenses. The

paper presents information from a year’s worth of hotline calls that dealt with

multiple count application. Information on judicial interpretation was

obtained from appellate case law on multiple count issues.

Sentencing Options Under the Guidelines (November 1996).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

The Sentencing Options Working Group examined the various alternatives to

imprisonment that are possible under the guidelines. This paper analyzes (1)

statutory directives regarding alternatives; (2) the ways in which the guidelines

define and allocate sentencing options; (3) criticisms of the existing approach;

(4) guideline complexity; (5) judicial use of existing options; (6) factors that
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

33

account for use or non-use of alternatives; and (7) evaluations of the

effectiveness of particular alternatives.

Other Reports and Publications

Dissenting View of Paul H. Robinson on the Promulgation of Sentencing Guidelines

by the United States Sentencing Commission (May 1, 1987). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This document contains Commissioner Paul Robinson’s dissenting viewpoint

on the Commission’s promulgation of its initial set of sentencing guidelines.

Preliminary Observations of the Commission on Commissioner Robinson’s Dissent

(May 1, 1987). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

In this document, the six commissioners who voted affirmatively to

promulgate the initial guidelines issued preliminary observations on

Commissioner Robinson’s dissent. Supplemental statements were issued by

Commissioners Ilene H. Nagel, Michael K. Block, and George E. MacKinnon.

Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions (July 1988). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This volume contains discussion materials distributed by the Commission to

encourage public analysis and comment on the development of sentencing

standards for organizations convicted of federal crimes. These materials

include a discussion draft of sentencing guidelines and policy statements for

organizations, a draft proposal on standards for organizational probation, a

report on sentencing of organizations in the federal courts (1984-1987), and a

staff working paper on criminal sentencing policy for organizations.

Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants – Preliminary Draft

(November 1, 1989). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

This document presented the Commission’s preliminary proposal on this issue

and was published to encourage public comment on the proposal and on any

other aspect of the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary

as they applied to the sentencing of organizations. 
United States Sentencing Commission

34

Public Access to Sentencing Commission Documents and Data, 54 Fed. Reg. 51279

(12/13/89). 

SC-Request; www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This is a policy notice regarding public access to Sentencing Commission

documents and data and an agreement between the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts and the Sentencing Commission concerning the confidentiality

of certain sentencing information.

Amendment Highlights (1989–Present).

(Individual years)

USSC-OnLine; SC-Request; RDL.

Amendment Highlights briefly summarizes the substantive and clarifying

amendments to the Guidelines Manual submitted to Congress during each

amendment cycle.

Selected Guidelines Application Decisions (1989–Present).

(Individual years)

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

The Commission compiles summaries of selected cases, organized according to

pertinent guideline section, involving application of the federal sentencing

guidelines or related sentencing issues.

The Federal Offender: A Program of Intermediate Punishments (Alternatives to

Imprisonment Project) (December 28, 1990). 

SC-Loan; RDL.

The primary purposes of this commissioner-led project were to explore

community-based alternatives to imprisonment, to make recommendations

with regard to increasing the array of sanctions available to the federal courts,

and to ascertain the desirability of increasing the pool of offenders eligible for

intermediate sanctions. The report presented a package of recommendations

for consideration by the Commission.

Sentences Imposed Under the Guidelines (October 1, 1990–September 30, 1991).

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This compilation is a modified version of the Sentences Imposed Chart,

formerly published by the Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts. The Sentencing Commission modified the original report,

basing it on the guidelines applied rather than on the statutes of conviction. 

Data for the set of tables emanate from the 26,813 guideline defendants in the

Commission’s fiscal year 1991 datafiles. Factors reported in this volume are

those considered by the court in arriving at a final sentencing range.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

35

U.S. Sentencing Commission Selected Reprints, Vol. I (June 1992). 

SC-Inspect; RDL.

This volume compiles eight previously published articles on federal

sentencing issues written by commissioners and staff. Topics include relevant

conduct, plea negotiations, acceptance of responsibility, departures, discretion,

and drug trafficking offenses.

Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium on Crime and Punishment in the United

States: Drugs & Violence in America (June 16–18, 1993).

SC-Request; RDL.

This volume contains the proceedings of the Commission’s first symposium in

a series on Crime and Punishment in the United States. The symposium

brought together more than 350 key policymakers to share information and

exchange ideas on the topic of drugs and violence. Chief Justice William H.

Rehnquist, Attorney General Janet Reno, Senators Edward M. Kennedy and

Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and Congresswoman Maxine Waters were among two

dozen government officials and experts who addressed the causes, prevention,

and treatment of drug abuse and violence. Video and audio tapes of the

symposium are available on loan from the Commission.

Report from Advisory Group on Environmental Sanctions (December 1993).

www.ussc.gov.

This 1993 draft of proposed sanctions for organizations convicted of

environmental offenses was prepared by an independent Advisory Working

Group on Environmental Offenses. The proposal includes such elements as

the determining of aggravating factors in sentencing, organizational

commitment to environmental compliance, and probationary periods for

organizations.

Plea Negotiations Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An Empirical

Examination of the Post-Mistretta Experience (December 1994).

SC-Loan.

This report, authored by U.S. Sentencing Commissioner Ilene H. Nagel and

University of Chicago Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer, explores the interrelationship between the federal sentencing guidelines and plea negotiation

practices during the period immediately following the Supreme Court’s

decision in Mistretta v. United States. This report includes an analysis of

qualitative data from site visits and an extensive review of sentencing

documents in ten selected jurisdictions.
United States Sentencing Commission

36

Update on the Activities of the United States Sentencing Commission

(September 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This compendium contains (1) reports to Congress on penalties for federal rape

cases, adequacy of penalties for fraud offenses involving elderly victims, and

adequacy of penalties for the intentional exposure of others through sexual

activity to HIV; (2) the Commission’s majority and minority opinions on the

crack and powder cocaine issue; and (3) commissioners’ congressional

testimony on cocaine penalties.

Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Crime and Punishment in the United

States: Corporate Crime in America: Strengthening the “Good Citizen” Corporation

(September 7–8, 1995).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This volume contains the proceedings of the Commission’s second symposium

in a series on crime and punishment. The symposium focused on the ways in

which companies, industries, and enforcement officials have responded to (1)

the organizational sentencing guidelines’ “carrot and stick” incentives and (2)

other changes in the enforcement landscape that encourage businesses to

develop strong compliance programs and adopt crime-controlling measures. 

Participants included federal enforcement officials, representatives of

corporations, private attorneys, and researchers who focus on business ethics

and crime.

A National Sample Survey: Public Opinion on Sentencing Federal Crimes

(October 1995).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This monograph reports the findings of a national sample survey

commissioned by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Conducted in 1994

through face-to-face interviews with a probability sample of the American

populace, the study sought to find out how the American public would

sentence persons convicted of crimes under the Federal Criminal Code. This

report describes the sentences given, examines the principles used in giving

sentences, and compares the sentences to those recommended in the

guidelines.

Guideline Departures 1989–Present.

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

These documents, updated periodically, summarize upward and downward

departures approved and disapproved by appellate courts. Tables are

presented that list specific departure factors along with the cases in which the

factors appear.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

37

U.S. Sentencing Commission Selected Reprints, Vol. II (September 1996).

SC-Request; RDL.

This volume compiles seven previously published articles on federal

sentencing issues written by commissioners and staff. Topics include the role

of guideline amendments in reducing sentencing disparity, charging and

bargaining practices, competing sentencing policies in a “war on drugs” era,

and guidelines for organizations.

Just Punishment: Public Perceptions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

(February 1997).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

In this study, more than 1,700 citizens throughout the United States provided

their opinions on punishment and crime seriousness issues. This first-ever

survey of public attitudes toward federal sentences used a series of crime

“vignettes” incorporating relevant offense and offender characteristics. These

vignettes were presented at personal interviews and respondents were asked to

record what they considered to be a “just” and appropriate sentence in each

case. This staff paper describes the survey and its methodology, and compares

public perceptions with the corresponding sentencing guideline ranges for

four selected federal offenses: drug trafficking, bank robbery, immigration

offenses, and fraud.

Guideline Sentencing: Determining “Loss” in §§2B1.1 (Theft) and 2F1.1 (Fraud)

(April 9, 1997).

www.ussc.gov.

This document examines “loss” as it pertains to theft and fraud and covers

such topics as a general definition of loss, estimating loss and gain, market

value, actual damages, interest, intended loss, and consequential damages.

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 62 Fed. Reg. 38598 (July 18, 1997); amended at 66

Fed. Reg. 59295 (November 27, 2001).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This is a notice of the establishment of Sentencing Commission rules of

practice and procedure relating to the manner in which it conducts its

business.

Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick Gauging Equity in Current Federal

Policy and Practice (January 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This exploratory research report examines the guidelines’ “substantial

assistance” policy statement in light of the guidelines’ overall statutory goal of
United States Sentencing Commission

38

fair and honest sentencing. The study focused on whether different districts’

policies and procedures were consistent and whether similar defendants were

receiving similar sentence reductions for providing similar assistance. The

report explores the policies and procedures across judicial districts and

analyzes the factors associated with substantial assistance reductions and the

magnitude of the departures. Research methodologies include site visits to

eight federal judicial districts, surveys and interviews administered to U.S.

attorney offices, and descriptive and multivariate data analyses.

The Year in Review: 1997–1998 (July 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

The report highlights the accomplishments of the Sentencing Commission

during 1997-1998. The document describes recent achievements in such areas

as policy development, resolution of circuit conflicts, guideline departures,

responses to legislative initiatives, training and education, and research

studies.

Probation and Supervised Release: Revocation and Other Issues

(August 18, 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

On the topic of probation and supervised release, this paper looks at relevant

key statutory provisions, applicable guidelines provisions (Chapter Seven of

the Guidelines Manual), legal issues, reimposition of supervised release,

delayed revocation, probation and supervised release imposed under the

Assimilative Crimes Act.

Loss Definition Field Testing Report (October 1998).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

In the summer of 1998, the Commission worked with the federal judiciary to

field test the Commission’s proposed definition of “loss” for use in the theft

and fraud guidelines. This report discusses the proposal, analyzes the results

of the field test, and summarizes the comments made at the subsequent

debriefing session attended by participants.

Firearms: Selected Federal Statutes and Guideline Enhancements (October 6, 1998).

www.ussc.gov.

This document provides a general overview of key sentencing issues and case

law arising from federal firearms statutes and various guideline provisions on

firearm enhancements.

Report to the Judicial Conference of the United States (March 1999).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

39

www.ussc.gov.

This brief report outlines U.S. Sentencing Commission activities and

developments regarding (1) commissioner vacancies; (2) recent guideline

amendments; (3) the ongoing work of the agency; and (4) the reported cases

during the past fiscal year of 1998.

Report to the Judicial Conference of the United States (September 1999).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This brief report updates (1) developments regarding commissioner vacancies

and (2) the ongoing work of the agency. Among topics discussed are briefing

materials on guidelines policy options pertaining to legislation enacted by the

105th Congress.

Federal Sentencing: Grouping of Money Laundering and Fraud Counts of Conviction

(March 2000).

www.ussc.gov. 

This document looks at the circuit split on the issue of whether money

laundering and fraud can be grouped together. The report analyzes relevant

court decisions.

Loss Issues (May 26, 2000).

www.ussc.gov.

This document discusses issues raised about the definition of loss in case law. 

Topics examined include actual loss (e.g., causation, consequential

damages, interest, and value received) and alternatives to actual loss (e.g.,

intended loss, gain, and risk of loss).

Selected Appellate Case Law on §5C1.1 (Safety Valve) (October 10, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This document analyzes case law on the safety valve guideline, looking at

cases pertaining to eligibility for the safety valve, statutory criteria, and burden

of proof. The document also looks at evidentiary hearings, necessity of

findings, appellate jurisdiction, and retroactive application.

Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Crime and Punishment in the United States: 

Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic Crimes and New Technology Offenses

(October 12–13, 2000).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.
United States Sentencing Commission

40

This volume contains the proceedings of the Commission’s third symposium

in a series on crime and punishment. The purposes of this symposium were

two-fold: first, to discuss sentencing policy for economic crimes generally; and

second, to discuss the impact of new technology on investigating, prosecuting,

and sentencing economic crimes.

An Overview of the Organizational Guidelines (2001).

www.ussc.gov.

This brief overview looks at the organizational sentencing guidelines and looks

at such topics as sharing “Best Practices” ideas and Chapter Eight’s seven key

criteria for establishing an effective compliance program.

Probation and Supervised Release Violations (February 2002).

www.ussc.gov.

This report looks at such topics as – guideline provisions on violations; ex post

facto clause and savings clause issues; revocation and the Assimilative Crimes

Act; revocation of probation or supervised release; authority of the probation

office to petition for revocation; and discretionary conditions of supervision.

Departures (June 2002).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This case law document examines post-Koon departure decisions, the

Sentencing Reform Act’s procedural amendments, criminal history departures,

substantial assistance departures, and the extent of departures.

Survey of Article III Judges: Summary Report (December 2002).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

With the Commission’s 15-year anniversary approaching, the Commission

undertook a survey to measure, from the judges’ perspectives, how the federal

sentencing guidelines have responded to the goals Congress set forth in the

Sentencing Reform Act. All Article III judges were mailed questionnaires in

January 2002. More than half of district courts judges and more than one-third

of circuit court judges responded.

Survey of Article III Judges on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Final Report

(March 2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

With the Commission’s 15-year anniversary approaching, the Commission

undertook a survey to measure, from the judges’ perspectives, how the federal

sentencing guidelines have responded to the goals Congress set forth in the
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

41

Sentencing Reform Act. All Article III judges were mailed questionnaires in

January 2002. More than half of district courts judges and more than one-third

of circuit court judges responded.

Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Organizational Guidelines (October 7,

2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This advisory group reviewed the operation and impact of the organizational

sentencing guidelines. The group concluded that the organizational

sentencing guidelines have been successful in inducing many organizations to

focus on compliance and to create programs to prevent and detect violations of

law. The group also concluded that changes should be made to give

organizations greater guidance regarding the factors that are likely to result in

effective programs to prevent and detect violations of law.

Final Report of the Native American Advisory Group (November 4, 2003).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This advisory group was formed in response to concerns raised that Native

American defendants are treated more harshly by the federal sentencing

system, than if they were prosecuted by their respective states. The group was

asked to consider any viable methods to improve the operation of the federal

sentencing guidelines in their application to Native Americans under the

Major Crimes Act.

Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines (May 2004).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

The first release in the research series on the recidivism of federal offenders,

this report examines in detail the predictive statistical power of the Chapter

Four Criminal History guidelines. The study uses pre-conviction and instant

offense information for a sample of guideline federal offenders sentenced in

fiscal year 1992, matched with their post-sentencing criminal behavior

collected from FBI records. Both tabular and statistical models of recidivism

outcomes report findings by criminal history category and point groupings, as

well as by offender demographics, instant offense characteristics, and

recidivating offense types.
United States Sentencing Commission

42

Recidivism and the “First Offender” (May 2004).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This second release in the research series on the recidivism of federal

offenders provides an empirical foundation for the Commission’s study of

recidivism rates among federal offenders with little or no criminal history prior

to the federal instant offense. Using definitional frameworks established in

several earlier Commission working group studies on “first offenders,” the

data documents recidivism risk for three plausible first offender groupings.

Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the Federal

Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform (November

2004).

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

This study is a comprehensive review of the research literature and sentencing

data to assess how well the guidelines have achieved the goals for sentencing

reform established by Congress. These goals include increased certainty and

transparency of sentences, increased severity of sentences for certain types of

serious crimes, and reduced sentencing disparity, including racial and ethnic

disparity.

Supreme Court Cases, Selected Guideline Application Decisions, and Circuit

Conflicts.

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

These documents, updated periodically, summarize Supreme Court decisions

along with cases involving the Commission, the federal sentencing guidelines,

and other related issues. Tables are presented that illustrate circuit conflicts

that have been addressed by Commission amendment and those that are

ongoing.

GuideLines: News from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

www.ussc.gov; SC-Request; RDL.

GuideLines, the Commission’s periodic newsletter, appears time to time with

information on current Commission activities, research findings, proposed

guideline amendments, training opportunities, and guideline application and

legal issues.

Survey Results/Preliminary Findings on Blakely Effect (November 2004).

www.ussc.gov.

While awaiting the submission and analysis of empirical data on the effect of

the Blakely decision, the Commission staff conducted a survey of 40 sample

subjects (judges, defense counsel, and probation officers) in the Seventh and
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

43

Ninth Circuits to attempt to determine, through anecdotal means, how those

jurisdictions were handling their criminal caseloads.

Transcripts of Proceedings of the Public Hearings of the United States Sentencing

Commission (November 16–17, 2004, and February 15–16, 2005).

USSC-Request; RDL.

This volume contains the transcripts of Commission public hearings at which

the Commission was seeking testimony on the present and future impact of

two Supreme Court opinions: Blakely v. Washington and United States v.

Booker. The Commission received testimony from judges, prosecutors,

defense attorneys, advocacy groups, and the academic community.

Submitted Witness Statements for the Public Hearings of the United States

Sentencing Commission (November 16–17, 2004, and February 15–16, 2005).

USSC-Request; RDL.

This volume contains submitted witness statements for Commission public

hearings in which the Commission was seeking testimony on the present and

future impact of two Supreme Court opinions: Blakely v. Washington and

United States v. Booker. The Commission received written statements from

judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, advocacy groups, and the academic

community.

A Comparison of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Criminal History Category and

the U.S. Parole Commission Salient Factor Score (January 4, 2005). 

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This is the third release in the Commission’s research series on the recidivism

of federal offenders. The report describes the empirical foundations of the

guidelines’ Chapter Four Criminal History category and its links to the Salient

Factor Score risk prediction instrument developed by the U.S. Parole

Commission. The report documents the comparative recidivism predictive

power of both measures, both for their individual component elements, and for

their total formulations. The analysis measures the predictive power of

hypothetical reformulations of the Criminal History Category.

Selected Post-Booker Decisions (May 2005). 

www.ussc.gov.

This document explores substantive post-Booker circuit court opinions and

highlights representative opinions from some district courts and is not meant

to be exhaustive of all decisions discussing the varied issues raised by the

Booker opinion. Only cases that were available on Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, and

PACER through May 13, 2005, are included.
United States Sentencing Commission

44

Final Report on the Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing

(May 2006).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker,

determining that the mandatory application of the federal sentencing

guidelines violated the right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment. The

Court remedied the Sixth Amendment violation by excising the provisions in

the Sentencing Reform Act that made the federal sentencing guidelines

mandatory, thereby converting the mandatory system that had existed for

almost 20 years into an advisory one. This report assesses the impact of Booker

on federal sentencing. 

An Overview of Loss in USSG 2B1.1 (March 2007).

www.ussc.gov; RDL.

This memorandum discusses issues often raised about economic loss and loss

calculation under USSG 2B1.1. Effective November 1, 2001, the Commission

consolidated theft and fraud guidelines into 2B1.1 and modified the definition

of loss to be based on reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm and to include

intended loss. This memorandum discusses selected, applicable cases and

concepts.

An Overview of the United States Sentencing Commission (Updated periodically). 

USSC-Request.

This pamphlet briefly discusses the history of the sentencing guidelines, how

the sentencing guidelines work, innovations under the guidelines system, the

organization of the Sentencing Commission, and the Commission's functions.

An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Updated periodically).

USSC-Request.

This pamphlet briefly discusses how the sentencing guidelines work, covering

such topics as offense seriousness, base offense level, specific offense

characteristics, adjustments, criminal history, determining the guideline

range, and sentences outside of the guideline range.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

45

Commission Data

The Sentencing Commission systematically collects and publishes data on the

sentencing process and conducts special studies on sentencing-related issues. To

ensure confidentiality of respondents and sites, open-ended interview data from the

evaluation implementation study will be made available for on-site inspection only. 

Pursuant to the policy on public access to Sentencing Commission documents and

data (54 Fed. Reg. 51279 (12/13/89)), all case and defendant identifiers have been

removed from the data.

Commission datasets are distributed online by the Inter-University

Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. 

The codebook provided with each dataset discusses in detail other criteria that

describe cases included in the data. Datasets are available via the following Internet

address:

http://www.ICPSR.umich.edu/NACJD/archive.html

For more information, contact University of Michigan Institute for Social

Research (ICPSR), P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248. Online, you may email

questions about data to nacjd@icpsr.umich.edu. For assistance via the telephone, use

the toll-free help line: (800) 999-0960.

Datasets described in this section contain data on federal criminal cases

sentenced under the guidelines. Each federal court is required to forward to the

Commission several documents on each case sentenced under the guidelines (except

petty offenses) including the indictment(s), the presentence report (PSR), the

judgment of conviction (J&C), any written plea agreement, a report on the sentencing

hearing, any modification of sentence, and any revocation of probation and

supervised release.

The Commission’s Office of Research and Data staff enters pertinent

information from the documents into its data collection system. This system

identifies the status of documents in the file, assigns a unique identification number,

and collects information necessary to determine the applicability of the case. Cases

sentenced under “old law,” cases in which courts held the guidelines unconstitutional

(prior to Mistretta), and those involving solely petty offenses are not captured in these

datasets.

The prospective nature of the Sentencing Reform Act, coupled with

constitutional challenges to the Act, resulted in only 17.9 percent of all federal

criminal defendants sentenced in 1988 being sentenced under the guidelines. These

proportions have increased yearly and are reflected in the increasing number of cases

available in the Commission’s annual individual defendant datasets.

Dataset entries are made on a per defendant/per sentencing basis (i.e., each

case is a consolidated sentencing of a single defendant). Multiple counts and

multiple indictments constitute a consolidated sentencing if the defendants were
United States Sentencing Commission

46

sentenced at the same time and if a single PSR (and thus guideline range) is

produced. Defendants may appear in more than one case in the dataset if they are

involved in more than one consolidated sentencing. Multiple codefendants in the

same consolidated sentencing will each appear as a separate case in the dataset.

Expansion of the Commission’s data collection system has resulted in

additional data elements being made available each year. The earliest datasets

primarily contain matched data from the Federal Probation Sentencing and

Supervision Information System (FPSSIS) datafile of the Administrative Office of the

U.S. Courts and sentence information collected from J&C orders submitted by the

courts. In 1990, basic guideline application information was collected and included in

subsequent datasets. In addition, the data collection system was expanded to

compensate for the elimination of the sentencing portion of the FPSSIS data

collection system in August 1990. In 1991, data collection and files were upgraded to

include in-depth guideline application information as well as additional elements to

supplement losses from the FPSSIS system. In 1992, additional elements such as

drug type were added to the automated files. In 1996, drug amount, type of defense

counsel, and amount of loss were added.

In 1995, the Commission released the Appeals dataset, which tracks appellate

review of sentencing decisions.

Federal Sentencing Statistics by District and Circuit (1996-Present).

www.ussc.gov.

This set of tables provides district, circuit, and national data on primary

offense category, mode of conviction, type of sentence, average length of

imprisonment, departure rates, and incarceration rates of defendants eligible

for non-prison sentences.

Post-Booker Sentencing Updates (February 2005–present).

www.ussc.gov.

An extensive set of tables and charts presenting data on post-Booker cases

received, coded, and edited as part of the Commission's post-Booker project.

The numbers are prepared using data extracted at various points in time

throughout the year.

USSC.88 (Calendar year 1988). 

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,223 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as of

November 8, 1989, that were sentenced between November 1, 1987, and

December 31, 1988 (inclusive).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

47

Information available in this dataset includes data elements from the FPSSIS

file of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and sentence information

collected from the J&C submitted by the court.

USSC.89-H (First six months of calendar year 1989).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 9,360 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as of

November 8, 1989, that were sentenced between January 1 and

June 30, 1989 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes data elements from the FPSSIS

file of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and sentence information

collected from the J&C submitted by the court.

USSC.89 (Calendar year 1989). 

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 22,676 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of February 28, 1990, that were sentenced between January 19, 1989, and

December 31, 1989 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes data elements from the FPSSIS

file of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and sentence information

collected from the J&C submitted by the court.

USSC.FY90 (Fiscal year 1990). 

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 29,011 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of December 28, 1990, that were sentenced between October 1, 1989, and

September 30, 1990 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes data elements from the FPSSIS

file of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, sentence information

collected from the J&C submitted by the court, and basic guideline

information collected from the PSR and the report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY91 (Fiscal year 1991). 

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 33,419 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of January 17, 1992, that were sentenced between October 1, 1990, and

September 30, 1991 (inclusive).
United States Sentencing Commission

48

This dataset includes sentence information collected from the J&C submitted

by the court, background information collected from the PSR, and in-depth

guideline information collected from the PSR and the report on the sentencing

hearing.

USSC.FY92 (Fiscal year 1992).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 38,258 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of January 26, 1993, that were sentenced between October 1, 1991, and

September 30, 1992 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY93 (Fiscal year 1993).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 42,107 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of January 11, 1994, that were sentenced between October 1, 1992, and

September 30, 1993 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY94 (Fiscal year 1994).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 39,971 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of December 23, 1994, that were sentenced between October 1, 1993, and

September 30, 1994 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY95 (Fiscal year 1995).

ICPSR.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

49

This dataset includes 38,500 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of December 26, 1995, that were sentenced between October 1, 1994, and

September 30, 1995 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY96 (Fiscal year 1996).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 42,439 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of December 27, 1996, that were sentenced between October 1, 1995, and

September 30, 1996 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY97 (Fiscal year 1997).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 48,848 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of January 31, 1998, that were sentenced between October 1, 1996, and

September 30, 1997 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY98 (Fiscal year 1998).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 50,754 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of February 22, 1999, that were sentenced between October 1, 1997, and

September 30, 1998 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY99 (Fiscal year 1999).
United States Sentencing Commission

50

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 55,557 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of February 11, 2000, that were sentenced between October 1, 1998, and

September 30, 1999 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY00 (Fiscal year 2000).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 59,846 cases received by the Sentencing Commission as

of May 25, 2001, that were sentenced between October 1, 1999, and September

30, 2000 (inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY01 (Fiscal year 2001).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 59,897 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2000, and September 30, 2001

(inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY02 (Fiscal year 2002).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 64,366 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2001, and September 30, 2002

(inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

51

USSC.FY03 (Fiscal year 2003).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 70,258 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2003

(inclusive).

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY04 (Fiscal year 2004).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 70,068 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2004

(inclusive). 

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY05 (Fiscal year 2005).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 72,462 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005

(inclusive). 

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.

USSC.FY06 (Fiscal year 2006).

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 72,585 cases received by the Sentencing Commission

that were sentenced between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006

(inclusive). 

Information available in this dataset includes sentence information collected

from the J&C submitted by the court, background information collected from

the PSR, and in-depth guideline information collected from the PSR and the

report on the sentencing hearing.
United States Sentencing Commission

52

Organizational Defendant Datasets

USSC.ORGSAN93

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 50 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period

November 1, 1991, to September 30, 1993, and 50 antitrust cases sentenced

under the fine provisions of §2R1.1 during the period November 1, 1987, to 

September 30, 1993. The module captures information describing

organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of conviction;

mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the sentencing

guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN94

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 86 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines and 18 cases in which

organizational defendants were sentenced under the fine provisions of §2R1.1

(1987) during the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994. The

module captures information describing organizational structure, size, and

economic viability; offense of conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions

imposed; and application of the sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN95

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 111 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines and four cases in which

organizational defendants were sentenced under the fine provisions of §2R1.1

(1987) during the period October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995; and were

received by the Commission by December 26, 1995. The module captures

information describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability;

offense of conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and

application of the sentencing guidelines. 

USSC.ORGSAN96

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 148 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines plus seven cases in which

organizational defendants were sentenced under the fine provisions of §2R1.1

(1987) during the period October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1996; and were
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

53

received by the Commission by December 27, 1996. The module captures

information describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability;

offense of conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and

application of the sentencing guidelines. 

USSC.ORGSAN97

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 220 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines plus cases in which

organizational defendants were sentenced under the fine provisions of §2R1.1

(1987) during the period October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997; and were

received by the Commission by January 31, 1998. The module captures

information describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability;

offense of conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and

application of the sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN98

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 218 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines plus cases in which

organizational defendants were sentenced under the fine provisions of §2R1.1

(1987) during the period October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. The

module captures information describing organizational structure, size, and

economic viability; offense of conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions

imposed; and application of the sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN99

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 255 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

1998, through September 30, 1999. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN00

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 296 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

1999, through September 30, 2000. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of
United States Sentencing Commission

54

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN01

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 238 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2000, through September 30, 2001. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN02

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 252 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2001, through September 30, 2002. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN03

ICPSR.

This dataset includes cases in which 200 organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2002, through September 30, 2003. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN04

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 130 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2003, through September 30, 2004. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines. 

USSC.ORGSAN05

ICPSR.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

55

This dataset includes 187 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2004, through September 30, 2005. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines. 

USSC.ORGSAN06

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 217 cases in which organizational defendants were

sentenced under the Chapter Eight guidelines during the period October 1,

2005, through September 30, 2006. The module captures information

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

Appeals Datasets

USSC.APPEAL93

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,078 appellants whose cases were filed March 9, 1990,

through September 30, 1993, and were received by the Commission by

December 22, 1993. Information captured in the module includes district,

circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court, and the

court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL94

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,745 appellants whose cases were filed

October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994, and were received by the

Commission by December 22, 1994. Information captured in the module

includes district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the

court, and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL95

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,863 appellants whose cases were filed 

October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995, and were received by the

Commission by December 26, 1995. Information captured in the module

includes district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the

court, and the court’s disposition.
United States Sentencing Commission

56

USSC.APPEAL96

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,710 appellants whose cases were filed

October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1996, and were received by the

Commission by December 27, 1996. Information captured in the module

includes district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the

court, and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL97

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,496 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 1996,

through September 30, 1997, and were received by the Commission by January

31, 1998. Information captured in the module includes district, circuit, date of

appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court, and the court’s

disposition.

USSC.APPEAL98

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,387 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 1997,

through September 30, 1998, and were received by the Commission by

February 22, 1999. Information captured in the module includes district,

circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court, and the

court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL99

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 7,103 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 1998,

through September 30, 1999, and were received by the Commission by

February 11, 2000. Information captured in the module includes district,

circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court, and the

court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL00

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,078 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 1999,

through September 30, 2000, and were received by the Commission by May 25,

2001. Information captured in the module includes district, circuit, date of

appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court, and the court’s

disposition.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

57

USSC.APPEAL01

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,280 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2000,

through September 30, 2001. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL02

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,834 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2001,

through September 30, 2002. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL03

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 6,564 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2002,

through September 30, 2003. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL04

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 7,213 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2003,

through September 30, 2004. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.

USSC.APPEAL05

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 7,813 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2004,

through September 30, 2005. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.
United States Sentencing Commission

58

USSC.APPEAL06

ICPSR.

This dataset includes 10,052 appellants whose cases were filed October 1, 2005,

through September 30, 2006. Information captured in the module includes

district, circuit, date of appeal, date of opinion, legal issues before the court,

and the court’s disposition.

Historical Datasets

Augmented FPSSIS Fiscal Year 1985 Convictions Dataset (July 1991). 

ICPSR.

The sentencing and related data in this collection were gathered from a

stratified random sample of defendants convicted in U.S. district courts during

fiscal year 1985. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ Federal

Probation Sentencing and Supervision Information System (FPSSIS) file was

the primary source of these data. The data include a description of the offense,

a characterization of the defendant’s background and criminal record, the

method of disposition of the case, and the sentence imposed. Felony and

misdemeanor cases are included, while petty offense cases are not.

Three types of additional information augment the existing FPSSIS data: 

(1) more detailed offense and offender characteristics identified by the

Sentencing Commission and coded by federal probation officers; (2) actual

time served in prison and projected time served from the SENTRY datafile of

the U.S. Bureau of Prisons; and (3) information necessary to estimate

prospective release dates from the hearing files of the U.S. Parole Commission.

The Commission collected these data during the development of the initial

sentencing guidelines. Analyses of the data represented a study of past

sentencing practices that proved important in the drafting of the guidelines as

well as an assessment of prospective guidelines’ impact on sentencing

practices and prison populations.

This dataset consists of four separate files of 10,570 individuals (drug offenses

dataset, n=2,879; street crimes dataset, n=2,756; white collar crimes dataset,

n=2,815; other offenses, n=2,210) sentenced for serious misdemeanor or felony

offenses between October 1, 1984, and September 30, 1985. Pursuant to the

policy on public access to Sentencing Commission documents and data (54

Fed. Reg. 51279, 12/13/89), all case and defendant identifiers have been

removed from the data.

Special Study Datasets

Organizations Sentenced in Federal Courts, 1988, and Organizations Sentenced in

Federal Courts, 1989-90. 
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

1 The FPSSIS data used for the mandatory minimum study include all 267,178 cases sentenced

between January 1, 1984, and June 30, 1990. FPSSIS data were used to identify the sample

by distinguishing the underlying conduct in a given case as potentially involving mandatory

minimum behavior. To classify cases, the data used were the total pure amount of drugs and

presence of a weapon.

2 These data include the Commission’s dataset for the fiscal year 1990 (MONFY90), with 29,011

defendants sentenced between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1990.

59

ICPSR.

To support the development of the Chapter Eight guidelines, the Commission

conducted two studies of sentencing practices for organizational defendants in

federal district courts. Dataset analyses from the two studies are included in

the Commission’s Supplementary Report on Sentencing Guidelines for

Organizations.

The data include information on (1) organizational defendants sentenced from

January 1 through December 31, 1988 (n=328) and (2) organizational

defendants sentenced from January 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990 (n=446). 

For each of these studies, relevant information was extracted from presentence

investigation reports, charging documents, and judgment of conviction orders.

Mandatory Minimum Study Sample Dataset, 1989–90.

ICPSR.

Pursuant to a congressional directive, the Sentencing Commission completed

a study of federal mandatory minimum statutes. As part of this endeavor, a

sample of the Commission’s fiscal 1990 data release was augmented by a

special coding project. This project was intended to supplement the normal

data collection activities of the Commission with information specific to the

application and effect of mandatory minimum statutes on the guidelines and

the federal criminal justice system. In particular, the sample dataset was

developed to supplement the FPSSIS1

 and Commission data2 with pertinent

preconviction information and to allow for a procedural tracking of cases and

application of mandatory minimum provisions at various stages of the criminal

justice process.

A 12.5 percent random sample was selected from the 29,011 MONFY90 cases. 

Initial computer screening identified 2,210 relevant sample cases qualifying

due to the presence of drugs in the offense, drugs and weapons, or robbery

with weapons. A study of these cases yielded a sample of 1,165 cases,

representing defendants for whom the offense behavior indicated the

appropriateness of mandatory minimum penalties. A coding system developed

for analysis of these cases incorporated case eligibility for mandatory

minimum charges (e.g., the amount of drug by type sufficient to invoke 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or requirements satisfying the “using or carrying” firearm

provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). A conservative interpretation of the legal

criteria minimized the chance of inclusion for cases not clearly mandatory in
United States Sentencing Commission

60

their offense behavior. Information coded on these 1,165 defendants included

real offense behavior, indictment history, mode of conviction, convicted

charges, sentences imposed, plea agreements, stipulations, and guideline

factors.

1991 Evaluation Study.

The datasets identified below were used to prepare The Federal Sentencing

Guidelines: A Report on the Operation of the Guidelines System and ShortTerm Impacts on Disparity in Sentencing, Use of Incarceration, and

Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining, submitted to Congress and the

GAO in December 1991: 

1991 Evaluation Study: National Survey Data. 

ICPSR.

The data in this collection are from a national survey of judges and court

practitioners developed in response to issues raised during site visits for the

implementation study.

This national mail survey sample consisted of all federal district judges, public

defenders, a random sample of assistant U.S. attorneys engaged in criminal

work, federal panel attorneys, and federal probation officers preparing

presentence reports or conducting the investigation for those reports. Sixty

percent of the surveys were returned completed (1,802 out of 2,998 sampled).

1991 Evaluation Study: Disparity Data. 

ICPSR.

Four disparity datasets, each representing one of four major offense types

(bank robbery, cocaine distribution, heroin distribution, and bank

embezzlement) drew data for this study from the FPSSIS dataset, an

augmented FPSSIS dataset constructed by the Commission representing

offenders sentenced in 1985, and datasets from the Sentencing Commission,

the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The dataset

available through ICPSR represents data expanded beyond what was available

for the evaluation study and includes demographic variables not coded at the

time of the evaluation. The datasets contain information on preguideline

defendants sentenced during fiscal year 1985 (October 1, 1984–September 30,

1985) and were compiled to assist the Commission in developing the initial

guidelines. These data came predominantly from the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts but were augmented by a special Commission data collection. 

Because constitutional challenges to the guidelines delayed nationwide

implementation for 15 months, fewer guideline cases were available for

analysis than originally anticipated. Therefore, to increase the sample size,

guideline datasets for bank robbery, bank embezzlement, and heroin
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2007–2008

61

distribution offenses cover more than one fiscal year (e.g., offenders sentenced

between January 19, 1989, and September 30, 1990).

The cocaine dataset includes additional variables not found in the other three

disparity datasets that indicate type and amount of drugs. The Anti-Drug

Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA86), in setting equivalencies for various types and

amounts of drugs, established different equivalencies for powder cocaine and

cocaine base. Data available through FPSSIS do not distinguish between

powder cocaine and cocaine base (crack). The guidelines incorporated the

statutory equivalencies by equating one unit of cocaine base to 100 units of

cocaine powder (see guideline 2D1.1). The Commission undertook a special

data collection effort that produced a file identifying the particular type of

cocaine. Consequently, the cocaine dataset covers a much shorter time frame,

from September to December 1990. The Commission’s augmented FPSSIS

data serve as the preguidelines source for the sample of cocaine distribution

cases.

Cases in each of the four datasets represent single counts of conviction or

multiple counts that generally would not enhance either the preguidelines or

guidelines sentence. The bank embezzlement dataset contains 1,143 cases (536

preguidelines and 607 guidelines); the bank robbery sample 1,372 cases (502

preguidelines and 870 guidelines); the heroin distribution sample 1,454 cases

(530 preguidelines and 924 guidelines); and the cocaine distribution sample

1,710 cases (328 preguidelines and 1,382 guidelines).

1991 Evaluation Study: Time Series Data. 

ICPSR.

The data in this collection represent two separate studies designed to assess

the impact of the sentencing guidelines. The first is a use of incarceration

study, which includes data on the incarcerative and non-incarcerative

sentences imposed and the average length of expected time to be served in

incarceration for all offenses as well as for select groups of offenses. The

second is a prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining study, which includes

data on the numbers of matters initiated, cases filed, and cases disposed of by

guilty plea and trial.

Both studies reflect monthly time series before and after the implementation

of the guidelines in November 1987. FPSSIS files from the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts defined the universe of observations for the study on

use of incarceration. FPSSIS records have been matched with data from the

Sentencing Commission, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Parole

Commission to obtain the relevant variables to compute the outcome variable

“expected time to be served.” Individual sentence records in each of the

datasets have been merged into one dataset. Data on use of incarceration

reflect monthly time series covering the period from 1984 to 1990.

The monthly time series measurements for the prosecutorial discretion and

plea bargaining study cover the period from 1984 to 1990. These monthly time

series have been constructed from two datasets maintained by the Executive
United States Sentencing Commission

62

Office for U.S. Attorneys: (1) Docket and Reporting System for Fiscal Years

1984–1986, and (2) Criminal Master File with Auxiliary Events and Charge Files

(referred to as the new data system) for fiscal years 1987–1990. These datasets

contain processing information about matters initiated, cases filed, and cases

resolved in U.S. attorney offices in each federal district.

1991 Evaluation Study: Implementation Study Interviews.

SC-Inspect.

This is a hard copy of implementation study interviews with judges, probation

officers, assistant U.S. attorneys, federal defenders, private counsel, and

federal court clerks.
A-1

Index by Publication Title

A

Acceptance of Responsibility Working Group Report ................................ 24

Adequacy of Federal Sentencing Guideline Penalties for Computer Fraud

and Vandalism Offenses: Report to the Congress ............................ 15

Adequacy of Penalties for Fraud Offenses Involving Elderly Victims:

Report to the Congress .................................................. 14

Adequacy of Penalties for the Intentional Exposure of Others, through

Sexual Activity, to HIV: Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Aliens Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Amendment Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases: Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Analysis of Sentencing-Related Provisions of S. 2305 and H.R. 3371

Conference Report Crime Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Analysis of the Sentencing-Related Provisions of the Senate Committee

Print of the Immigration Reform Act of 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Analysis of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (H.R.3355) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B

Bank Robbery Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In Mistretta V. United States ............................................. 18

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In United States v. Lopez ................................................ 18

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In United States v. Bell ................................................. 19

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

in Support of Petitioner, United States of America in U.S. v. Booker and

U.S. v. Fanfan .............................................................. 19

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

in Support of Respondent, United States of America in Claiborne v.

United States and Rita v. United States ..................................... 20

C

Career Offender Guidelines Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cellular Telephone Cloning Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter Three Adjustments: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Child Pornography, Obscenity Offenses, and Hate Crimes: Working Group Report . . . . . . . . 22

Child Sex Offense Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (1995): Special Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (1997): Special Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (2002): Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (2007): Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A-2

Comparison of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Criminal History Category

and the U.S. Parole Commission Salient Factor Score Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Computer Fraud Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Criminal History: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Criminal History Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Criminal History Working Group Report: Category 0, Category VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 24

Criminal Livelihood Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

D

Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Departures and Offender Characteristics: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Dissenting View of Paul H. Robinson on the Promulgation of Sentencing

Guidelines by the United States Sentencing Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Downward Departures from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Report to Congress . . . . . . . 17

Drug Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Drug Working Group Report – Listed Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Drugs, Firearms, and Violent Offenses Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Drugs/Role/Harmonization Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

F

Federal Court Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ 

Substantial Assistance to the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Federal Offender: A Program of Intermediate Punishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Report on the Operation of the Guidelines

System and Short-Term Impacts on Disparity in Sentencing, Use of 

Incarceration, and Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Field Test of Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Loss in the

Theft and Fraud Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the 

Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform . . . . . 43

Final Report of the Native American Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Final Report of Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Firearms and Explosive Materials Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Firearms: Selected Federal Statutes and Guideline Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Food and Drug Working Group Preliminary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Food and Drug Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

G

Grouping of Money Laundering and Fraud Counts of Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

GuideLines: News from the U.S. Sentencing Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Guideline Departures 1989-Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Guideline Sentencing: Determining “Loss” in §§2B1.1 (Theft) and 2F1.1 (Fraud) . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Guidelines Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A-3

I

Identity Theft Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Increased Penalties for Campaign Finance Offenses and Legislative Recommendations . . . . 17

Increased Penalties for Cyber Security Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Increased Penalties Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements: Supplementary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Intellectual Property Policy Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

J

Just Punishment: Public Perceptions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Juvenile Offenders Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

L

Level of Detail in Chapter Two: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Loss Definition Field Testing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Loss Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Loss Issues Working Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

M

Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Special Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Manslaughter Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Maximum Utilization of Prison Resources: Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

MDMA Drug Offenses: Explanation of Recent Guideline

Amendments (Report to Congress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Memorandum of Law by the United States Sentencing Commission as

amicus curiae in United States v. McLellan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Methamphetamine Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Money Laundering Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28

Multiple Counts: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

N

National Sample Survey: Public Opinion on Sentencing Federal Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

No Electronic Theft Act Policy Development Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Policy Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

O

Overview of Loss in USSG 2B1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Overview of the Organizational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Overview of the United States Sentencing Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A-4

P

Plea Negotiations Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An Empirical

Examination of the Post-Mistretta Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Preliminary Observations of the Commission on Commissioner Robinson’s Dissent . . . . . . . . 34

Preliminary Report to the Commission: Staff Working Group on Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Probation and Supervised Release: Revocation and Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Probation and Supervised Release Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium on Crime and Punishment 

In the United States: Drugs & Violence in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Crime and Punishment

In the United States: Corporate Crime in America: Strengthening

The “Good Citizen” Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Crime and Punishment

In the United States: Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic

Crimes and New Technology Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Public Access to the Sentencing Commission Documents and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Public Corruption Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

R

Recidivism and the “First Offender” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Relevant Conduct: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Report from Advisory Group of Environmental Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Organizational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Report of the Drugs/Role/Harmonization Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Report to the Judicial Conference (March 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Report to the Judicial Conference (September 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Revocation Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Role in the Offense Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Rules of Practice and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

S

Selected Appellate Case Law on Section 5C1.2 (Safety Valve) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Selected Guidelines Application Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Selected Post-Booker Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Selected Reprints, Vol. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Selected Reprints, Vol. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Sentences Imposed Under the Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Sentencing Federal Sexual Offenders: Protection of Children from Sexual Predators

Act of 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Sentencing for the Possession or Use of Firearms During a Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants: Preliminary Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations: Supplementary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sentencing Options Under the Guidelines: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Sentencing Policy for Money Laundering Offenses, Including Comments on

Department of Justice Report: Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Sentencing Reform Act: Staff Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Sex Offenses Against Children: Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Sourcebook of Sentencing Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A-5

Statutory Penalties Project Description and Compilations of Federal Criminal

Offenses – Preliminary Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Statutory Penalty Review: Supplementary Report to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Steroids Policy Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Submitted Witness Statements for the Public Hearing of the United States

Sentencing Commission (Nov. 16–17, 2004, and Feb. 15–16, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick Gauging Equity in Current

Federal Policy and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Supreme Court Cases, Selected Guideline Application Decisions,

and Circuit Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Survey of Article III Judges (Summary Report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Survey of Article III Judges on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Final Report) . . . . . . . . . . 42

Survey Results/Preliminary Findings on Blakely Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

T

Telemarketing Fraud Offenses — Explanation of Recent Guideline Amendments . . . . . . . . . . 16

Telemarketing Fraud Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Transcripts of Proceedings of the Public Hearing of the United States

Sentencing Commission (Nov. 16–17, 2004, and Feb. 15–16, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

U

Update on the Activities of the United States Sentencing Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

V

Violent Crimes/Firearms/Gangs Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

W

White Collar Crime Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Y

Year in Review: 1997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B-1

Index by Subject

A

acceptance of responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

adjustments to guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

alternatives to incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 33, 35

amendments to sentencing guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8, 35

annual reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B

bank robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23

biological weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Blakely ............................................................... 6, 19, 44

Booker .......................................................... 6, 19, 44, 45, 48

C

campaign finance offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

capital punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

career offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

case law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 41, 42

chapter two offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

chemical weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

child pornography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

child sex offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 22, 25, 31

circuit conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Claiborne v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

cocaine sentencing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18

computer fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 27

corporate crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 27, 34, 36, 37, 41, 42

crime bill analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 15

criminal history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 20, 22, 23, 24, 33, 43, 45

criminal livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

cyber security offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

D

data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 28, 33, 38, 39, 42

drug offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36

E

economic crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 41

electronic theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

environmental sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

evaluation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 43
B-2

ex post facto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

explosive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

F

Fanfan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 19, 44, 45, 48

fifteen year study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

firearm offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23, 25, 30, 40

first offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

food and drug offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 40

fraud, computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 27

fraud, elderly victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

fraud loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 29, 38, 40, 41, 45

fraud, telemarketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 16, 29

G

gangs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

guideline amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8, 35

guidelines application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

guidelines manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

H

hate crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

HelpLine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

HIV penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

I

identity theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

immigration offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 15, 22

Internet site (USSC On-Line) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3

J

judges survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

just punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

juvenile offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

L

legal briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

library resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

loss issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 29, 38, 40, 41, 45

M

mandatory minimum penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

manslaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B-3

MDMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Mistretta v. U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

money laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 25, 28, 40

multiple counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 33

N

Native American defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

newsletters (GuideLines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

nuclear weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

O

obscenity offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

offender characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

offense seriousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

organizational defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 27, 34, 36, 37, 41, 42

P

plea negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

practice and procedure, rules of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 39

prison resource utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PROTECT Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

public access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

public corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

public hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

public opinion on sentencing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

R

rape, penalties for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

relevant conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

revocation, probation and supervised release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 39

Rita v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

role in the offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 26

S

safety valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Sarbanes-Oxley Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

sentences imposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Sentencing Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

statistics, sourcebook of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

statutory penalties project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

substantial assistance to government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 39
B-4

supervised release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 39, 41

Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 44

T

tax crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

telephone cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

U

U.S. v. Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

U.S. v. Booker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 19, 44, 45, 48

U.S. v. Fanfan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 19, 44, 45, 48

U.S. v. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

U.S. v. McLellan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

V

vandalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

violent crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 13, 14, 21, 25

W

white collar crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27