MEMORANDUM

FROM: Judge Diana E. Murphy

Chair

On behalf of the Commission, I am pleased to provide a copy of our

2003–2004 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 to make this guide easier to use, it features subject

and title indexes. As an added help, the Commission offers its award-winning web

site (USSC OnLine) on the Internet at http://www.ussc.gov. A variety of

Commission reports, information, and materials are available via this resource.

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.
Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Site (USSC OnLine) .................................. 3

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

Newsclips, Public Comment, and Official Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Library Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

Commission Publications ............................................ 7

Guidelines Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Annual Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Reports to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Legal Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Policy Development Team and Working Group Reports . . . . . . . . . 18

Staff Discussion Papers – Simplification Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Other Reports and Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Commission Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Monitoring Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Historical Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Special Study Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

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

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

Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

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 criminal

justice community, and the public.

GPO Regional Depository Libraries

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

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,

search “Locate Libraries” at www.gpo.gov/libraries, 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:

USSC OnLine 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 On-site inspection 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 # 2003–2004

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 (USSC OnLine) at the address

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

materials. USSC OnLine is organized into the following categories: Latest

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

Guidelines, News, Advisory Groups, and Other Items of Interest. Subcategories 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
United States Sentencing Commission

4

in 1991. 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

Departure Analysis

Criminal History

Restitution: Determining Victims and Harms

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

Newsclips, Public Comment, and Official Records

A collection of guidelines-related news clippings. 

SC-Inspect.

Files of public comment from individuals and organizations. 

SC-Inspect.

Minutes of Commission meetings.

(1992-present — USSC OnLine; RDL; pre-1992 — SC-Inspect; RDL).

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearing Transcripts.

SC-Inspect; SC-Loan; RDL; USSC OnLine (August 12, 1996–present).

United States Sentencing Commission Public Hearings
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

5

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)

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
United States Sentencing Commission

6

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

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 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 sentencingrelated issues.

Guideline Training and Education
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

7

Commission Publications

USSC OnLine.

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..

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).
United States Sentencing Commission

8

2 volumes.

SC-Inspect; RDL.

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

(Effective 11/27/91).

SC-Request; RDL.

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.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.

Guidelines Manual (Amendments effective 11/01/02).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

9

2 volumes.

USSC OnLine; RDL.; Publisher (West)

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

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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

04/30/03, and 05/30/03).

USSC OnLine; RDL.

Annual Reports

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).

USSC OnLine (1995-present); SC-Request; SC-Inspect; RDL.

Sourcebook of Sentencing Statistics (1996-present).

USSC OnLine; SC-Request; RDL.

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.
United States Sentencing Commission

10

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.

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

Criminal Justice System (August 1991).

USSC OnLine; 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

11

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 monitoring 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

Commission’s monitoring system.

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

Report Crime Bills (Spring 1992).

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
United States Sentencing Commission

12

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).

USSC OnLine; 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 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

13

(March 1995).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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. 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. 
United States Sentencing Commission

14

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

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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 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).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

15

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

Report to the Congress: Increased Penalties for Cyber Security Offenses

(May 2003).

USSC OnLine; 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
United States Sentencing Commission

16

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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

Legal Briefs

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

v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). 

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

17

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.

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.

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
United States Sentencing Commission

18

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, monitoring 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 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

19

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 organizerleader-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.
United States Sentencing Commission

20

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 monitoring

data, summarized appellate case law, and proposed two guideline

amendment options.

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.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

21

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.

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
United States Sentencing Commission

22

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 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

23

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.

The group examined the language and legislative history of the 1986 AntiDrug 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.
United States Sentencing Commission

24

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 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).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

25

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

Federal Court Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ Substantial

Assistance to the Government (May 1997).

SC-Loan; SC-Inspect.
United States Sentencing Commission

26

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; RDL.

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

27

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; USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine: 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).

USSC OnLine; 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. 

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

USSC OnLine; RDL.
United States Sentencing Commission

28

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

Staff Discussion Papers – Simplification Project

The Sentencing Reform Act (November 1996).

USSC OnLine; 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).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

29

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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) 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; RDL.
United States Sentencing Commission

30

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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 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). 
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

31

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. 

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

(12/13/89). 

SC-Request; USSC OnLine; 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.
United States Sentencing Commission

32

Selected Guidelines Application Decisions (1989-Present).

(Individual years)

USSC OnLine; SC-Request; 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.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Crimes: Questions and

Answers (1991). 

USSC OnLine.

This document asks and answers questions about the organizational

guidelines on such topics as general background, the development of the

organizational guidelines, the theory behind the guidelines, and how the

guidelines work.

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

SC-Request; 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 monitoring files. Factors reported in this

volume are those considered by the court in arriving at a final sentencing

range.

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

33

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).

USSC OnLine.

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.

Update on the Activities of the United States Sentencing Commission

(September 1995).

USSC OnLine; 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
United States Sentencing Commission

34

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

USSC OnLine; 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.

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

35

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine.

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; RDL.

This exploratory research report examines the guidelines’ “substantial

assistance” policy statement in light of the guidelines’ overall statutory goal

of 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
United States Sentencing Commission

36

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine.

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).

USSC OnLine.

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

developments regarding (1) commissioner vacancies; (2) recent guideline
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

37

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine. 

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).

USSC OnLine.

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; SC-Request; RDL.

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.
United States Sentencing Commission

38

Organizational Sentencing Guidelines Bibliography (March 2001).

USSC OnLine.

This is a bibliography on the organizational sentencing guidelines compiled

by Commission staff, including treatises, reports, surveys, and articles on

the organizational guidelines.

Guideline Resource List (Non-Commission Materials) (October 2001).

USSC OnLine.

This is a bibliography of periodicals and articles related to guideline

sentencing, authored by persons outside of the U.S. Sentencing

Commission.

An Overview of the Organizational Guidelines (2001).

USSC OnLine.

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).

USSC OnLine.

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).

USSC OnLine; 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).

USSC OnLine; 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

39

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).

USSC OnLine; 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.

Supreme Court Cases and Circuit Conflicts.

SC-Request; RDL.

These documents, updated periodically, summarize Supreme Court

decisions along with circuit conflicts in 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.

USSC OnLine; 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.

Worksheets. (To be used in conjunction with the Guidelines Manual)

USSC OnLine; SC-Request; RDL.

Individual: Worksheets A-D take the user step-by-step through application

of the sentencing guidelines for individual defendants. 

Organizations: Similar to the individual worksheets, Worksheets A-D take

the user step-by-step through application of the sentencing guidelines for

organizational defendants.

An Overview of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
United States Sentencing Commission

40

Commission Data

USSC OnLine; SC-Request.

This brochure 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. A student version of the brochure is also available.

An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

USSC OnLine; SC-Request.

This document offers a brief description of the U.S. sentencing guidelines

and how they operate. The characterizations of the guidelines in this

overview are presented in simplified form and are not to be used for

guideline interpretation, application, or authority.

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 Dr. Christopher S. Dunn, ICPSR, P.O. Box

1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Online, you may direct questions about data to

nacjd@icpsr.umich.edu. You may contact the ICPSR using the toll-free help line,

1-800-999-0960 or dial (734) 647-5000 for assistance. 

Monitoring Datasets

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

41

plea agreement, a report on the sentencing hearing, any modification of

sentence, and any revocation of probation and supervised release.

The Commission’s 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

Monitoring 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 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 Monitoring 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.

USSC.88 (Monitoring dataset for calendar year 1988). 

ICPSR.
United States Sentencing Commission

42

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).

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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for fiscal year 1991). 

ICPSR.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

43

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).

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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for fiscal year 1995).

ICPSR.
United States Sentencing Commission

44

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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for 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 (Monitoring dataset for fiscal year 1999).
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

45

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 (Monitoring dataset for 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(Monitoring dataset for 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.

Federal Sentencing Statistics by District and Circuit (1996-Present).

USSC OnLine.

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. 

USSC.ORGSAN93 (Organizational defendant dataset).

ICPSR.
United States Sentencing Commission

46

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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 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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

ICPSR.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

47

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.ORGSAN01 (Organizational defendant dataset).

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
United States Sentencing Commission

48

describing organizational structure, size, and economic viability; offense of

conviction; mode of adjudication; sanctions imposed; and application of the

sentencing guidelines.

USSC.APPEAL93 (Appeals dataset).

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 (Appeals dataset).

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 (Appeals dataset).

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.

USSC.APPEAL96 (Appeals dataset).

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 (Appeals dataset).

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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

49

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 (Appeals dataset).

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 (Appeals dataset).

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 (Appeals dataset).

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.

USSC.APPEAL01 (Appeals dataset).

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.
United States Sentencing Commission

50

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. 

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.
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

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 monitoring dataset for the fiscal year 1990 (MONFY90),

with 29,011 defendants sentenced between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1990.

51

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 monitoring 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 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.
United States Sentencing Commission

52

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, the Commission’s guidelines sentence

monitoring system, 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 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
Guide to Publications & Resources # 2003–2004

53

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’s Monitoring

dataset, 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 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-
United States Sentencing Commission

54

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 ................................................ 21

Adequacy of Federal Sentencing Guideline Penalties for Computer Fraud

and Vandalism Offenses: Report to the Congress ........................................... 14

Adequacy of Penalties for Fraud Offenses Involving Elderly Victims:

Report to the Congress ..................................................................... 13

Adequacy of Penalties for the Intentional Exposure of Others, through

Sexual Activity, to HIV: Report to the Congress ............................................. 13

Aliens Working Group Report ....................................................................... 20

Amendment Highlights ............................................................................ 32

Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases: Report to the Congress .............................. 13

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

Conference Report Crime Bills ............................................................. 11

Analysis of the Sentencing-Related Provisions of the Senate Committee

Print of the Immigration Reform Act of 1995 ................................................ 13

Analysis of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (H.R.3355) ............................................................................ 12

Annual Report ...................................................................................... 9

 

B

Bank Robbery Working Group Report ............................................................ 18, 21

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In Mistretta V. United States ............................................................... 16

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In United States v. Lopez. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Brief for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae

In United States v. Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C

Career Offender Guidelines Working Group Report ................................................. 18

Cellular Telephone Cloning Final Report ........................................................... 28

Chapter Three Adjustments: Staff Discussion Paper ............................................... 30

Child Pornography, Obscenity Offenses, and Hate Crimes: Working Group Report .................. 20

Child Sex Offense Working Group Report ........................................................... 22

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (1995): Special Report to the Congress ...................... 12

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (1997): Special Report to the Congress ...................... 14

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (2002): Report to the Congress .............................. 15

Computer Fraud Working Group Report ............................................................ 25

Criminal History: Staff Discussion Paper ........................................................... 30

Criminal History Working Group Report ............................................................ 19

Criminal History Working Group Report: Category 0, Category VII ............................... 21, 22

Criminal Livelihood Working Group Report ......................................................... 18
A-2

D

Departures ......................................................................................... 39

Departures and Offender Characteristics: Staff Discussion Paper ................................... 30

Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions ................................................... 31

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

Guidelines by the United States Sentencing Commission ................................... 31

Drug Working Group Report ........................................................................ 22

Drug Working Group Report – Listed Chemicals .................................................... 20

Drugs, Firearms, and Violent Offenses Working Group Report ....................................... 19

F

Federal Court Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ 

Substantial Assistance to the Government .................................................. 26

Federal Offender: A Program of Intermediate Punishments ........................................ 32

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 ............................ 11

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Crimes: Questions and Answers ............. 33

Field Test of Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Loss in the

Theft and Fraud Guidelines ................................................................ 27

Firearms and Explosive Materials Working Group Report ........................................... 21

Firearms: Selected Federal Statutes and Guideline Enhancements ................................. 37

Food and Drug Working Group Preliminary Report .................................................. 25

Food and Drug Working Group Report .............................................................. 25

G

Grouping of Money Laundering and Fraud Counts of Conviction .................................... 38

GuideLines: News from the U.S. Sentencing Commission ........................................... 40

Guideline Departures 1989-Present ................................................................. 35

Guideline Resource List (Non-Commission Materials) ............................................... 39

Guideline Sentencing: Determining “Loss” in §§2B1.1 (Theft) and 2F1.1 (Fraud) ..................... 36

Guidelines Manual .................................................................................. 7

I

Identity Theft Final Report ......................................................................... 28

Increased Penalties for Campaign Finance Offenses and Legislative Recommendations ............. 16

Increased Penalties for Cyber Security Offenses .................................................... 16

Increased Penalties Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act .................................................. 15

Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements: Supplementary Report ....................... 10

J

Just Punishment: Public Perceptions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ....................... 35

Juvenile Offenders Working Group Report .......................................................... 24
A-3

L

Level of Detail in Chapter Two: Staff Discussion Paper ............................................. 29

Loss Definition Field Testing Report ............................................................... 37

Loss Issues ......................................................................................... 38

Loss Issues Working Paper ......................................................................... 26

M

Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Special Report to the Congress .................................... 10

Manslaughter Working Group Report ............................................................... 26

Maximum Utilization of Prison Resources: Report to the Congress .................................. 12

MDMA Drug Offenses: Explanation of Recent Guideline

Amendments (Report to Congress) ......................................................... 15

Memorandum of Law by the United States Sentencing Commission as

amicus curiae in United States v. McLellan ................................................. 17

Methamphetamine Final Report ................................................................... 27

Money Laundering Working Group Report ....................................................... 23, 26

Multiple Counts: Staff Discussion Paper ........................................................... 30

N

National Sample Survey: Public Opinion on Sentencing Federal Crimes ............................ 35

No Electronic Theft Act Policy Development Team Report .......................................... 27

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Policy Team ............................................ 29

O

Organizational Sentencing Guidelines Bibliography ................................................. 38

Overview of the U.S. Sentencing Commission ....................................................... 40

Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ..................................................... 41

Overview of the Organizational Guidelines ......................................................... 39

P

Plea Negotiations Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An Empirical

Examination of the Post-Mistretta Experience .............................................. 34

Preliminary Observations of the Commission on Commissioner Robinson’s Dissent ................. 31

Preliminary Report to the Commission: Staff Working Group on Alternatives ....................... 22

Probation and Supervised Release: Revocation and Other Issues ................................... 37

Probation and Supervised Release Violations ....................................................... 39

Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium on Crime and Punishment 

In the United States: Drugs & Violence in America ......................................... 33

Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Crime and Punishment

In the United States: Corporate Crime in America: Strengthening

The “Good Citizen” Corporation ............................................................ 34

Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Crime and Punishment

In the United States: Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic

Crimes and New Technology Offenses ...................................................... 38

Public Access to the Sentencing Commission Documents and Data .................................. 32

Public Corruption Working Group Report ........................................................... 25
A-4

R

Relevant Conduct: Staff Discussion Paper ......................................................... 29

Report from Advisory Group of Environmental Sanctions ........................................... 34

Report of the Drugs/Role/Harmonization Working Group ............................................ 24

Report to the Judicial Conference (March 1999) ..................................................... 37

Report to the Judicial Conference (September 1999) ................................................ 37

Revocation Working Group Report .................................................................. 19

Role in the Offense Working Group Report ......................................................... 19

Rules of Practice and Procedure .................................................................... 36

S

Selected Appellate Case Law on Section 5C1.2 (Safety Valve) ....................................... 38

Selected Guidelines Application Decisions .......................................................... 32

Selected Reprints, Vol. I ............................................................................ 33

Selected Reprints, Vol. II ........................................................................... 35

Sentences Imposed Under the Guidelines .......................................................... 33

Sentencing Federal Sexual Offenders: Protection of Children from Sexual Predators

Act of 1998 ................................................................................. 28

Sentencing for the Possession or Use of Firearms During a Crime ................................... 28

Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements ....................................................... 7

Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants: Preliminary Draft ........................... 32

Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations: Supplementary Report ................................... 11

Sentencing Options Under the Guidelines: Staff Discussion Paper .................................. 31

Sentencing Policy for Money Laundering Offenses, Including Comments on

Department of Justice Report: Report to the Congress ..................................... 14

Sentencing Reform Act: Staff Discussion Paper .................................................... 29

Sex Offenses Against Children: Report to the Congress ............................................. 14

Sourcebook of Sentencing Statistics ................................................................. 9

Statutory Penalties Project Description and Compilations of Federal Criminal

Offenses - Preliminary Report to the Congress .............................................. 10

Statutory Penalty Review: Supplementary Report to the Congress ................................. 10

Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick Gauging Equity in Current

Federal Policy and Practice ................................................................. 36

Supreme Court Cases and Circuit Conflicts ......................................................... 40

Survey of Article III Judges (Summary Report) ...................................................... 39

Survey of Article III Judges on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Final Report) .................... 40

T

Telemarketing Fraud Offenses — Explanation of Recent Guideline Amendments ................... 15

Telemarketing Fraud Working Group Report ....................................................... 27

U

Update on the Activities of the United States Sentencing Commission .............................. 34
A-5

V

Violent Crimes/Firearms/Gangs Working Group Report .............................................. 23

W

White Collar Crime Working Group Report .......................................................... 24

Y

Year in Review: 1997-1998 ......................................................................... 36
B-1

Index by Subject

A

acceptance of responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

adjustments to guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

alternatives to incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 31, 32

amendments to sentencing guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 32

annual reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B

bank robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 21

biological weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

C

campaign finance offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

career offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

case law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 38, 39

chapter two offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

chemical weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

child pornography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

child sex offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 22, 28

cocaine sentencing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14, 15

corporate crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 11, 15, 31, 33, 38, 39

crime bill analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

criminal history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19, 21, 22, 30

criminal livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

cyber security offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

D

data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 26, 30, 35, 39

drug offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24

E

electronic theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

environmental sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

evaluation study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

ex post facto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

explosive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

F

firearm offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 21, 28, 37

food and drug offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26

fraud, computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 25
B-2

fraud, elderly victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

fraud loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 36, 37, 38

fraud, telemarketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 27

G

gangs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

guideline amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 32

guidelines manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

guideline worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

H

hate crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

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

HIV penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

I

identity theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

immigration offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 20

Internet site (USSC On-Line).......................................................... 3

J

judges survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 40

just punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

juvenile offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

L

legal briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

loss issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 38

M

mandatory minimum penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

manslaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

MDMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mistretta v. U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

money laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 23, 26, 38

multiple counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

N

nuclear weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B-3

O

obscenity offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

offender characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

organizational defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 11, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39

P

plea negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

practice and procedure, rules of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 37, 39

prison resource utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

public access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

public corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

public hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

R

rape, penalties for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

relevant conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

revocation, probation and supervised release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 37

role in the offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 24

S

safety valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

sentences imposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Sentencing Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

statistics, sourcebook of .............................................................. 9

statutory penalties project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

substantial assistance to government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 36

supervised release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 37, 39

T

telephone cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

V

vandalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

violent crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 12, 19, 23

W

white collar crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 24

worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40