INTRA-CITY DIFFERENCES IN 

FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES

Federal District Judges in 30 Cities, 2005 - 2017

January 2019

United States Sentencing Commission

WILLIAM H. PRYOR JR. 

Acting Chair

RACHEL E. BARKOW 

Commissioner

CHARLES R. BREYER 

Commissioner

DANNY C. REEVES 

Commissioner

PATRICIA K. CUSHWA

Ex Officio

DAVID RYBICKI

Ex Officio

KENNETH P. COHEN

Staff Director

BRENT E. NEWTON

Deputy Staff Director

JANUARY 2019

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

INTRA-CITY DIFFERENCES IN 

FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES

Federal District Judges in 30 Cities, 2005 - 2017

1

METHODOLOGY

9 The Commission’s 2012 Study

11 Refining the 2012 Study

14 Case Exclusions

16 Impact of Exclusions

18 Measuring Judicial Discretion

20 Graphical Presentation of the Results

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

25 Overall Findings

29 Conclusions

INTRODUCTION & KEY FINDINGS

5 Introduction

7 Key Findings

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

2 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

APPENDIX A

31 2012 Intra-District Analysis

31 Bubble Plot Example

32 Scatter Plot Example

APPENDIX B

33 City-By-City Results

34 Alexandria 

35 Atlanta 

36 Baltimore 

37 Boston

38 Charlotte

39 Chicago 

40 Cleveland 

41 Columbus 

42 Dallas 

43 Denver 

44 Detroit 

45 Houston

46 Los Angeles

47 Manhattan

48 Memphis 

Seattle

Los Angeles

San Diego

Houston

Denver

Saint Louis

Chicago

Detroit Manhattan

Philadelphia

Alexandria

Atlanta

Miami

Phoenix

San Antonio

San Juan

Baltimore

Charlotte

Tampa

Dallas

Oklahoma City

Salt Lake City

San Francisco

Portland

Memphis

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Columbus

Boston

Cleveland

49 Miami 

50 Minneapolis

51 Oklahoma City 

52 Philadelphia 

53 Phoenix 

54 Pittsburgh 

55 Portland 

56 Saint Louis 

57 Salt Lake City

58 San Antonio 

59 San Diego 

60 San Francisco 

61 San Juan 

62 Seattle 

63 Tampa

Table of Contents

Appendices
3

APPENDIX D

101 Weighting Analyses

101 Differences in Caseload in a Single Time Period

102 Differences in Caseload Over Time Periods

APPENDIX C

65 Caseload Compositions

66 Alexandria 

67 Atlanta 

68 Baltimore 

69 Boston

70 Charlotte

71 Chicago 

73 Cleveland 

74 Columbus 

75 Dallas 

76 Denver 

77 Detroit 

78 Houston

79 Los Angeles

81 Manhattan

84 Memphis 

85 Miami 

86 Minneapolis

87 Oklahoma City 

88 Philadelphia 

89 Phoenix 

90 Pittsburgh 

91 Portland 

92 Saint Louis 

93 Salt Lake City

94 San Antonio 

95 San Diego 

96 San Francisco 

97 San Juan 

98 Seattle 

99 Tampa

APPENDIX E

105 Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation

108 Atlanta 

109 Chicago 

110 Baltimore 

111 Cleveland

112 Columbus

113 Dallas 

114 Detroit 

115 Los Angeles

116 Manhattan

117 Memphis 

118 Miami

119 Minneapolis

120 Oklahoma City 

121 Philadelphia 

122 Phoenix 

123 Pittsburgh 

124 Portland 

125 Salt Lake City

126 San Diego 

127 San Juan 

128 Tampa

TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Congress included 

three provisions of the 

Sentencing Reform Act in 

response to its concerns 

about unwarranted 

sentencing disparities.
5

This report examines variations in sentencing 

practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing 

outcomes—in the federal courts since the Supreme 

Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker.

1

The United States Sentencing Commission analyzed 

the sentencing practices of federal district judges 

in 30 major cities located throughout the country 

to determine the extent of the judges’ variations in 

imposing sentences in relation to the city average. 

This report is the second in a series of reports 

updating the analyses and findings of the Commission’s 

2012 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States 

v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.

2 The first such update, 

issued in 2017, focused on demographic differences at 

the national level in federal sentencing.3 Its multivariate 

analysis concluded that the increases in demographic 

differences in sentencing that had occurred during 

the first seven years after Booker—including a higher 

average sentence for Black males compared to White 

males—persisted in the subsequent five-year period.4

This second update focuses on judges’ sentencing 

practices at the city level. It addresses intra-city 

variations in sentencing practices; it is not intended to 

address inter-city variations. 

Federal Judges in 30 Cities 

2005 - 2017

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

In its 2012 Booker Report, the Commission’s 

analysis of sentencing data showed increasing 

differences among district judges in a majority of 

the 94 federal judicial districts. The analysis focused 

on the judges’ rates of non-government sponsored 

below range sentences. Such sentences result from 

downward “departures” pursuant to commentary 

or policy statements in the Guidelines Manual or 

downward “variances” that are outside of the guidelines 

framework pursuant to the courts’ consideration of 

the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), without a motion 

by the government.5 The Commission’s 2012 report 

concluded that “sentencing outcomes increasingly 

depend[ed] upon the judge to whom the case [was] 

assigned.”6 

In its current analysis, the Commission 

compared judges’ individual sentencing practices 

to average sentencing practices within their same 

city. Focusing on the average guideline minimum of 

the guideline range for each judge’s caseload, the 

Commission determined whether each judge on 

average sentenced below or above the guideline 

minimum and by how much. The Commission 

calculated each judge’s average percent difference 
6

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

The Commission’s updated analysis is directly 

related to a main reason for the Sentencing Reform 

Act of 1984, which largely still governs federal 

sentencing today, after certain modifications made by 

the Supreme Court in Booker.

7 The Act was the result 

of a widespread bipartisan concern that unwarranted 

sentencing disparities existed in the federal judicial 

system.8 Such disparities were both regional (e.g., 

differences among the districts) as well as within the 

same courthouse.9 This report concerns the extent of 

the latter type of disparities since 2005. 

In response to its concern about unwarranted 

sentencing disparities, Congress included three 

different provisions of the Act—two directed to 

the Commission and a third directed to sentencing 

judges—intended to reduce the extent of disparities.10

Congress instructed the Commission to pay “particular 

attention” to avoiding unwarranted sentencing 

disparities in creating guidelines.11 Although the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Booker rendered the 

guidelines advisory—thereby providing courts with 

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

three provisions. Indeed, the Court specifically stated 

that it believed that the post-Booker advisory guideline 

system would “promote uniformity in the sentencing 

process” and thus help avoid unwarranted sentencing 

disparities.12

from the guideline minimum, whether positive or 

negative, in their individual cases and then compared 

the judges’ average percent differences to the average 

percent difference for all the judges in their city. 

The current study is based on a broader 

range of cases than the 2012 study—not only nongovernment sponsored below range sentences but also 

many sentences within and above the guideline range. 

It also considered some, but not all, governmentsponsored below range sentences. The cases studied 

by the Commission for this report accounted for 49.2 

percent of all cases in the 30 cities from fiscal year 

2005 to fiscal year 2017. They were a representative 

sample of all cases nationally during those same years. 

A key benefit of comparing how different 

judges in the same city sentenced is that they 

generally had similar caseloads in terms of offense 

types and offender characteristics as the result of the 

random assignment of cases among the judges in that 

city. Therefore, differences in sentencing practices 

among those judges generally are not explained by 

differences in the composition of their caseloads. The 

methodology used by the Commission for this report 

is further discussed at pages 9 through 24. 
7

• The Commission’s current analysis measured judges’ average percent differences from the guideline 

minimums in their cases in relation to their city’s average during three periods between 2005 and 

2017.* It demonstrated a clear increase in the extent of differences in sentencing practices in a 

majority of the cities studied following the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Booker and continuing 

after the Court’s 2007 decisions in Gall and Kimbrough. The overall trend continued, although to lesser 

extent, in the six years following the last period analyzed in the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report. 

• Not all of the 30 cities experienced the same changes in differences in sentencing practices since 2005. 

In some cities, particularly the ones with the largest number of judges, the increases in differences 

were substantial. However, in other cities, the increases were modest, and a few cities experienced 

decreases in the extent of sentencing differences among their judges since 2005. 

• In most cities, the length of a defendant’s sentence increasingly depends on which judge in the 

courthouse is assigned to his or her case. 

Findings of the Commission’s 

30-City Analysis

KEY FINDINGS

KEY FINDINGS

Overall increases in sentencing differences among judges in 30 

major cities since 2005 are consistent with the Commission’s findings in 

its 2012 Booker Report regarding intra-district sentencing differences—

demonstrating that differences persist, 13 years after Booker and six years 

after the 2012 analysis. 

* The Booker Period (January 12, 2005—December 9, 2007); the Gall Period (December 10, 2007—September 30, 2011); 

and the Post-Report Period (October 1, 2011—September 30, 2017).
8 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

By controlling for offense 

and offender characteristics 

through random case 

assignment, differences in 

sentencing practices among 

a city’s judges will primarily 

be attributable to individual 

judges’ different degrees 

of sentencing discretion 

exercised in their cases.
9

The Commission’s 2012 

Study of Sentencing Differences

METHODOLOGY

In 2012, the Commission examined sentencing 

differences among judges within each of the 94 federal 

judicial districts. Its report used “bubble plots” to show 

how judges within the same district differed in how 

often they imposed sentences below the guideline 

range without a request from the government.13 

The 2012 analysis covered four time periods: 

• the Koon Period (the Supreme Court’s 1996 

decision in Koon v. United States14 until the 

enactment of the PROTECT Act on April 30, 

2003);

• the PROTECT Act Period (April 30, 2003, 

through the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in 

Blakely v. Washington,

15 which foreshadowed 

the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United 

States v. Booker16);

• the Booker Period (January 12, 2005, to the 

Gall and Kimbrough decisions17); and 

• the Gall Period (the period following the Gall

and Kimbrough decisions through the end of 

fiscal year 2011).

An example of a bubble plot, taken from 

the 2012 Booker Report, appears in Appendix A 

(p. 31).

Each bubble represented a single judge in a 

district (in the example in Appendix A, the Northern 

District of Illinois). The relative size of a bubble 

depicted the size of a judge’s caseload compared to 

the sizes of the caseloads of other judges in the same 

district. The larger the bubble, the larger a judge’s 

share of the district’s caseload. The location of a 

bubble on the vertical axis of the graph showed the 

rate of that judge’s non-government sponsored below 

range sentences for the relevant time period. 

The bubble plots for the 94 districts showed 

“variation in the rates of non-government sponsored 

below range sentences among judges within the same 

district ha[d] increased in most districts since Booker, 

indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly 

depend[ed] upon the judge to whom the case [was] 

assigned.”18 In particular, the 2012 report found 

that “in two-thirds of [the 94] districts the spread in 

the rates of non-government sponsored below range 

sentences” among judges in the same district increased 

from the Booker Period through the Gall Period.19

METHODOLOGY
10

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

in a specific district may not account for differences 

in caseload and other factors among the different 

divisions or cities within that district that could partially 

explain the differences in sentencing practices and 

corresponding sentencing outcomes. 

The 2012 district-level study was limited in 

two other respects. First, it analyzed every district 

judge and magistrate judge “who sentenced at least 

one offender” during the relevant time periods.22

Because there was no minimum caseload requirement 

for inclusion of a judge in the analysis, some judges’ 

actual overall sentencing practices may not have been 

reflected in the data. Second, as noted above, the 

2012 methodology looked solely at the rate and extent 

of non-government sponsored below range sentences. 

Although the rate of such sentences has steadily 

increased after Booker, they still only constitute around 

one-fifth of all sentences today.23 A more robust 

analysis would include a broader range of judges’ cases.

In addition to the bubble plots for each district, 

the Commission also produced corresponding scatter 

plots showing the average extent of reduction below 

the average guideline minimum in the cases in which 

judges imposed a non-government sponsored below 

range sentence. An example of a scatter plot—also 

concerning the Northern District of Illinois—appears 

in Appendix A (p. 32). In the scatter plots, individual 

judges in each district were represented by triangles; 

unlike in the bubble plots, the size of each judge’s 

caseload was not depicted by the size of the triangles. 

The scatter plots showed significant differences in the 

judges’ average extents of reduction below the average 

guideline minimum in those cases, yet the differences 

existed in each of the four periods studied.20 

In discussing the limitations in its districtlevel study, the 2012 report noted that, although 

“judges within the same district generally are more 

likely than judges across districts to preside over 

similar cases to the extent that the district’s cases are 

randomly distributed among the judges,” “the caseload 

composition and prosecutorial practices . . . may differ 

across divisions within the same district.”21 As a result, 

a comparison of the sentencing practices of all judges 
11

METHODOLOGY

For its current report, the Commission has 

created a refined methodology to analyze differences 

in sentencing practices in the three periods since the 

guidelines became advisory—the Booker Period, Gall

Period, and six-year period following the publication of 

the 2012 Booker Report (called the “Post-Report Period,” 

using data from fiscal years 2012-2017).24 The refined 

methodology narrows the bubble plots’ focus on intradistrict differences by looking at sentencing differences 

at the city level—that is, differences in sentencing 

practices among district judges with chambers and 

courtrooms in the same city. 

The refined methodology makes other 

changes responsive to the limitations noted by the 

Commission in its 2012 study. To be considered in the 

current analysis, a sentencing judge had to impose a 

minimum of 50 sentences during at least one of the 

periods studied, in order to make it more likely that the 

judge’s cases were representative of his or her overall 

sentencing practices. A city had to have at least three 

judges in each period who met this threshold. There 

was no requirement, however, that those judges be 

the same for each period studied.25 In addition, the 

analysis included more than just cases in which judges 

METHODOLOGY

Refining the 2012 Study

Study of Cities vs. Districts

Gall Period Post-Report Period

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

Booker Period

Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2017

Figure 1. Periods Analyzed in the 30-City Study
12

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

imposed sentences below the guideline minimum 

without a request from the government (discussed 

further below). 

The study of different sentencing practices of 

judges within a single city offers a distinct advantage 

over the study of sentencing differences of judges 

in larger geographical areas, including federal judicial 

districts. When the sentencing practices of federal 

judges in a single city are compared, the analysis benefits 

from random distribution of cases from the same 

pool of cases, which are subject to generally uniform 

prosecutorial practices (e.g., charging practices). That 

distribution is a function of random case assignment 

generally used in the federal judicial system in each 

major city or division of a district in which a courthouse 

is located.26 Analyzing different sentencing practices 

among district judges in the same city is akin to a 

“natural experiment.”27 Assuming a city’s judges’ 

caseloads are each large enough as well as randomly 

assigned, all judges in a city overall will sentence 

similarly situated offenders with respect to offense 

types and offender characteristics. By controlling 

for offense type and offender characteristics through 

random case assignment, differences in sentencing 

practices among a city’s judges will primarily be 

attributable to individual judges’ different degrees of 

sentencing discretion exercised in their cases. 

Conversely, when judges within an entire 

judicial district are analyzed, the offense types and 

offender characteristics in the judges’ caseloads may 

differ substantially depending on the different divisions 

or cities within the district. Furthermore, prosecutorial 

practices may differ depending on the city or division 

within a district. Therefore, comparing the sentencing 

practices of an entire district’s judges may result in 

findings of differences in sentencing practices and 

sentencing outcomes that could be explained in part by 

differences in offense types and offender characteristics 

or different prosecutorial practices associated with 

different parts of the district. 

As part of this analysis, the Commission 

analyzed the sentencing practices of district judges 

located in large metropolitan areas in 30 federal judicial 

districts throughout the country.28 The cities represent 

each of the major regions of the United States—the 

Southeast, the Northeast, the Southwest, the Midwest, 

the West29—as well as 11 of the 12 federal judicial 

circuits.30 Each city is located in one of the most 

densely populated areas of the United States.31 

The total number of cases from the 30 cities 

over the three periods analyzed by the Commission 

was 143,589. The total number of district judges who 

imposed sentences in those cases was 413 (see p. 15). 

Judges who imposed 50 or more sentences in more 

than one period were counted only once in calculating 

that total. Judges are not identified by name in the 

Commission’s study. Appendix C lists only identification 

numbers assigned to each judge by the Commission for 

research purposes.
13

METHODOLOGY

Seattle

Los Angeles

San Diego

Houston

Denver

Saint Louis

Chicago

Detroit

Manhattan

Philadelphia

Alexandria

Atlanta

Miami

Phoenix

San Antonio

San Juan

Baltimore

Charlotte

Tampa

Dallas

Oklahoma City

Salt Lake City

San Francisco

Portland

Memphis

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Columbus

Boston

Cleveland

Figure 2. Cities Analyzed in the Refined Study

1. Alexandria (Eastern District of Virginia);32

2. Atlanta (Northern District of Georgia);

3. Baltimore (District of Maryland);

4. Boston (District of Massachusetts);

5. Charlotte (Western District of North Carolina); 

6. Chicago (Northern District of Illinois);

7. Cleveland (Northern District of Ohio);

8. Columbus (Southern District of Ohio);

9. Dallas (Northern District of Texas);

10. Denver (District of Colorado);

11. Detroit (Eastern District of Michigan);

12. Houston (Southern District of Texas);

13. Los Angeles (Central District of California);

14. Manhattan (Southern District of New York);33

15. Memphis (Western District of Tennessee);

16. Miami (Southern District of Florida); 

17. Minneapolis (District of Minnesota);

18. Oklahoma City (Western District of Oklahoma); 

19. Philadelphia (Eastern District of Pennsylvania);

20. Phoenix (District of Arizona);

21. Pittsburgh (Western District of Pennsylvania);

22. Portland (District of Oregon);

23. Saint Louis (Eastern District of Missouri);

24. Salt Lake City (District of Utah);

25. San Antonio (Western District of Texas);

26. San Diego (Southern District of California);

27. San Francisco (Northern District of California);

28. San Juan (District of Puerto Rico);

29. Seattle (Western District of Washington); and

30. Tampa (Middle District of Florida). 
14

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Case Exclusions

METHODOLOGY

Another refinement of this study is its 

inclusion of all types of cases in which judicial 

sentencing discretion can be measured. In the 2012 

study, the Commission focused on cases in which 

courts sentenced defendants below the guideline 

range without a motion from the government. The 

current study analyzes those cases as well as cases 

in which courts imposed sentences outside of the 

guideline range based on a government motion (with 

two exceptions discussed below). In addition, the 

Commission’s current analysis includes cases in which 

judges imposed sentences within or above the guideline 

range, which together constitute around half of all 

sentences.34 The Commission’s consideration of these 

additional categories of cases allows for a fuller study 

of sentencing discretion. 

The Commission, however, narrowed the 

dataset in other ways in order to focus on sentencing 

discretion. Specifically, the Commission excluded 

cases that did not allow for a meaningful assessment 

of sentencing discretion, or in which it was difficult to 

accurately measure the percent difference from the 

guideline minimum. 

EXCLUSION 1

EXCLUSION 2

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

otherwise applicable guideline minimum (“mandatory minimum trumps”);35 and

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

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

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

the motions are almost always granted).36

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

for a meaningful assessment of judges’ sentencing discretion:

Focusing on Cases in Which 

Meaningful Sentencing Discretion Can Be Measured
15

METHODOLOGY

The Commission excluded three additional types of cases because of 

difficulties in accurately measuring the percent difference from the guideline 

minimum in such cases:

EXCLUSION 3

EXCLUSION 4

EXCLUSION 5

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

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

guidelines (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c));37

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

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

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

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

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

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

necessarily fell in Zones A or B of the Sentencing Table).38

The analysis refines 

the dataset to 

allow for a fuller 

study of sentencing 

discretion. 

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

JUDGES

413

CASES

143,589

YEARS 

13

CITIES

30
16

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

13.1%

31.0%

12.7%

14.2%

29.0%

§2B1.1

§2D1.1

§2K2.1

§2L1.2

All Other

9.8%

33.5%

13.2%

17.8%

25.7%

§2B1.1

§2D1.1

§2K2.1

§2L1.2

All Other

National Caseload (Exclusions Applied)

FY 2005 – FY 2017

(N = 478,833)

Combined 30-City Caseload (Exclusions Applied)

FY 2005 – FY 2017

(N = 143,589)

Figure 3. Comparison of Caseload Composition After Exclusions

The Commission applied the same case 

exclusions to the national caseload during the 13-year 

study period, which showed that the 143,589 cases 

from the 30 cities were a representative sample of the 

national caseload.41 In terms of caseload composition 

(guideline types), the 30 cities’ caseloads (combined) 

resembled the national caseload composition during 

the 13-year period, as shown in the figure below.

After excluding these five categories of cases, 

along with cases for which incomplete sentencing 

documentation was submitted to the Commission,39

149,363 of the total 291,763 cases from the 30 

cities during fiscal years 2005 to 2017 remained for 

analysis.40 An additional 5,774 cases were excluded 

because they were handled by judges who did not 

meet the minimum 50-case requirement per period 

for inclusion in the Commission’s analysis—bringing 

the total number of cases in the Commission’s 30-city 

dataset to 143,589 (49.2% of the 291,763 cases). 

Impact of Exclusions 

METHODOLOGY
17

291,763

Federal Offenders Sentenced from FY 2005 through FY 2017 

160,116

The Five Methodology Exclusions

(n=131,647)

No Mandatory Minimum Penalty

(n=124,129 or 86.4%)

Mandatory Minimum Below Guideline Range

(n=19,460 or 13.6%)

143,589 Cases

Included in 30-City Analysis

Figure 4. Cases Remaining in 30-City Study After Exclusions

149,363

Incomplete Documentation

(n=10,753)

50-Case Threshold Not Met

(n=5,774)

METHODOLOGY

Impact of Exclusions on the Effect of 

Prosecutorial Charging Decisions

The exclusion of many cases with statutory 

mandatory minimum penalties reduced the effect that 

prosecutorial charging practices could have on the 

Commission’s analyses in this report. Although random 

case assignment theoretically should make the effect 

of prosecutorial charging decisions equally spread 

among all judges in a city, some prosecutors may file 

superseding indictments containing charges carrying 

statutory mandatory minimum penalties after they 

learn that their cases have been assigned to certain 

judges in a courthouse who are perceived as unduly 

lenient. In such cases, the filing of the superseding 

charges could constrain the judge’s sentencing 

discretion.42 The Commission’s methodology has 

reduced the potential influence of this factor. 

In 13.6 percent of the cases in the 

Commission’s dataset for this study (19,460 of 143,589 

cases), offenders were subject to statutory mandatory 

minimum sentences. In all of those cases, however, 

the statutory minimum fell below the applicable 

guideline minimum. Therefore, judges retained 

discretion to sentence below the guideline minimums 

(down to the statutory minimums). In most of those 

cases, courts sentenced well above the statutory 

mandatory minimum sentence even as they departed 

or varied below the guideline range,43 suggesting that 

prosecutorial charging decisions did not constrain the 

courts’ sentencing discretion in such cases.
18

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

The Commission’s city-level analysis focused 

on the average percent difference between the 

guideline minimums and the sentences imposed in each 

judge’s cases. For each case, the guideline minimum 

and the actual sentence imposed were determined, and 

a percent difference between the two was calculated 

(see Figure 5 on the next page). For example, if the 

guideline minimum in a case was 63 months and the 

judge imposed a sentence of 39 months (24 months 

below the guideline minimum), the percent difference 

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

judge imposed a sentence of 87 months in a case with 

a guideline minimum of 63 months (24 months above 

the guideline minimum), the percent difference was 

38.1 percent. All of a judge’s cases’ percent differences 

were then added together and divided by the total 

number of his or her cases, which yielded an average 

percent difference for that judge. For some judges, the 

average percent difference was a positive percentage 

(meaning that, on average, his or her sentences were 

above the guideline minimums), while for others it was 

a negative percentage (meaning that, on average, his or 

her sentences were below the guideline minimums). 

The guideline minimum was chosen as the 

baseline for analysis because of the gravitational pull it 

tends to have on sentences. The Supreme Court has 

directed district courts to consider the guideline range 

as the “benchmark” and “starting point” in the postBooker federal sentencing process and also to “remain 

cognizant” of it during all three steps of the “Booker

three-step process” used at federal sentencing.44 In 

a majority of cases in which judges impose sentences 

within the applicable guideline range, they impose 

the guideline minimum (58.4% of cases from fiscal 

years 2005 through 2017). Furthermore, in the cases 

analyzed by the Commission for this report, when 

judges imposed a sentence outside of the guideline 

range, they departed or varied below the range nearly 

21 times as often as they departed or varied above the 

range.45 In those cases with below range sentences, 

judges were required by Supreme Court precedent to 

use the guideline minimum as the “starting point” in 

deciding how far to depart or vary below the guideline 

range. The guideline minimum is thus the focal point 

in the advisory guidelines system and, for that reason, 

the baseline for the Commission’s analysis. 

Measuring Judicial Discretion

METHODOLOGY

Judges’ Average Percent Difference from Guideline Minimums 
19

METHODOLOGY

Average Percent Difference Versus 

Average Sentence Length

While other researchers have studied 

differences in average sentence length among judges 

in the same city,46 the Commission focused on average 

percent differences above or below the guideline 

minimum because that measure is less sensitive to 

differences in the judges’ caseload compositions and, 

thus, is a better gauge of sentencing discretion. As 

shown in Appendix C (p. 65), the judges in the majority 

of the 30 cities had generally similar caseloads 

compared to the other judges in their cities. However, 

even with random case assignments, some judges had 

caseload compositions that differed somewhat from 

other judges in the same city. Such differences can 

have a significant impact on average sentence length 

per judge. For instance, if one judge in a city drew 

a disproportionately large number of drug-trafficking 

or firearms cases, which tend to have much higher 

guideline minimums (and correspondingly higher 

sentences) on average than other common offense 

types,47 that judge’s average sentence could be higher 

than other judges’ sentences in the same city for 

reasons unrelated to how that judge exercised his or 

her post-Booker sentencing discretion. As discussed 

in Appendix D (p. 101), however, uneven distributions 

of offense types among judges in some of the 30 

cities did not substantially affect the average percent 

differences of those judges.

Although the Commission’s analysis is not 

based on average sentence lengths, the Commission’s 

analysis is informative of differences in sentence length 

in similar cases. Judges’ average percent differences 

from the guideline minimums in their cases are, of 

course, necessarily associated with their average 

sentence lengths. For example, assuming two judges’ 

average guideline minimums each reflected the national 

average of 60 months,48 but their average percent 

differences were 10.0 percent and -40.0 percent, they 

would impose average sentences of 66.0 months and 

36.0 months, respectively—a difference of 30 months 

(or 2-1⁄2 years). If those two judges had courtrooms in 

the same city and each drew a sufficiently large number 

of cases through random case assignment to result in 

comparable offender and offense characteristics in 

their caseloads, that difference in average sentences 

would indicate that similarly situated defendants were 

receiving substantially different sentences within the 

same courthouse. 

Guideline Minimum

63 months

39 months

Sentence Imposed

24-month Difference

-38.1%

Figure 5. Calculating Percent Difference from Guideline Minimum

EXAMPLE:
20

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

The complete results of the Commission’s 30-

city study appear in Appendix B (p. 33). As shown in 

Figure 6 above, a graph for each city uses horizontal 

bars to show differences in sentencing practices among 

district judges in each city studied (for each time 

period). Each judge in a city (who met the 50-case 

minimum for a period) is represented by a bar on the 

graph. The bars show the sentencing practices of each 

judge in relation to the city average. Bars are in either 

the positive or negative halves of the graph depending 

on judges’ average percent differences in relation to 

the city average. 

Graphical Presentation of the Results

METHODOLOGY

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Avg

-28.1%

Each judge in a city is represented by

a bar on the graph.

In this example, 24 judges are included 

in the analysis of this time period. 

City’s average percent difference from the city’s average guideline minimum.

Judges above

the city’s average.

Judges below

the city’s average.

City’s

total spread

over one

time period.

Figure 6. Graphical Depiction of the 30-City Analysis

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%
21

METHODOLOGY

Red-colored bars represent judges whose 

average percent differences are above the city’s 

average, while blue-colored bars represent judges 

whose average percent differences are below the 

city’s average. The darker shades of each color, the 

further the percentages are away from the city average, 

positive or negative. A color key shows what range of 

percentages (in 5% bands) that each shade of each 

color represents (e.g., “-25 to -29.99%”). 

Each graph contains one, and usually two, 

important datapoints relevant to differences in 

sentencing practices among the city’s judges for each 

time period: (1) the difference between the judge 

with the largest positive average percent difference 

in relation to the city average and the judge with the 

largest negative average percent difference in relation 

to the city average in a given time period (referred to 

as the total spread or range);49 and (2) the standard 

deviation for all judges’ average percent differences in 

relation to the city average for the same time period. 

The total spread or range measures the 

absolute percentage difference between the two 

judges at opposite ends of the bar graphs,50 while the 

standard deviation measures the overall extent of all the 

city’s judges’ differences in sentencing practices. The 

standard deviation is a separate “measure of spread, 

dispersion or variability of a group of” datapoints.51 The 

larger the standard deviation, the greater the dispersion 

or variability among the datapoints in the dataset. For 

cities where there were less than five judges in any 

period, only the total spread is reported because four or 

less judges are too few for reporting the city’s standard 

deviation. For cities with five or more judges in all 

three periods, both the total spread and the standard 

deviation are reported. Twenty-seven of the 30 cities 

had at least five judges in all the periods.52 Appendix 

E (p. 105) contains a discussion of the relevance of the 

standard deviation to the Commission’s analysis, as 

well as a discussion of statistical outliers in the analysis. 
22

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

An example of the bar graph (in a single time 

period) is depicted in Figure 7 to the right. 

In the case of Chicago in the Post-Report 

Period, the city’s average percent difference from the 

guideline minimum was -28.1 percent. This means, on 

average, judges in Chicago imposed sentences 28.1 

percent below the guideline minimums in their cases 

in the most recent period. The judge represented by 

the bar with the darkest red shade was the farthest 

from the city’s average in the positive direction (with 

an average percent difference 32.4 percentage points 

higher than the city average). The judge represented 

by the bar with the darkest blue shade was the farthest 

from the city’s average in the negative direction (with 

an average percent difference 17.0 percentage points 

lower than the city average). The total spread of 49.5 is 

the absolute percentage difference between those two 

judges’ average percent differences.53 The standard 

deviation of 10.6 is the measure of the dispersion from 

the city average for all 24 judges in the analysis. 

Graphical Presentation 

Depicting a Single Time Period

METHODOLOGY

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40

-28.1%

CHI

Post

Figure 7. Chicago-Based Federal Judges in the 

Post-Report Period

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 24 

Cases: 2,951 

Spread: 49.5 

Standard Deviation: 10.6 
23

The bar graphs for all 30 cities in Appendix B 

(p. 33) show all three time periods together, so that 

changes in the total spread and standard deviation 

from one period to the next can be seen. 

An example of bar graphs for a single city over 

all three periods is depicted on the right in Figure 8. 

This graphical presentation for Chicago shows that 

the total spread increased from 31.6 in the Booker

Period to 42.7 in the Gall Period to 49.5 in the PostReport Period. During the same three periods, the 

standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 11.0 but 

then decreased slightly to 10.6. 

Graphical Presentation 

Depicting All Time Periods

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.1%

CHI

Booker

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.8%

CHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-28.1%

CHI

Post

Judges: 18 

Cases: 1,341 

Spread: 31.6 

Standard Deviation: 7.9 

BOOKER PERIOD

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 22

Cases: 2,033

Spread: 42.7

Standard Deviation: 11.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 24 

Cases: 2,951 

Spread: 49.5 

Standard Deviation: 10.6 

Figure 8. Chicago-Based Federal Judges in 

All Periods
24

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-0.7%

OKC

Booker

Judges: 7

Cases: 436

Spread: 32.1

Standard Deviation: 10.2 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.6%

OKC

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-19.3%

OKC

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 800

Spread: 14.8

Standard Deviation: 5.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,369

Spread: 6.9

Standard Deviation: 2.7 

Graphical Presentation 

Depicting All Time Periods

METHODOLOGY

In contrast to Chicago, Oklahoma City is an 

example of a city whose total spreads and standard 

deviations consistently decreased during the three 

periods.

Its total spread decreased from 32.1 in the 

Booker Period to 14.8 in the Gall Period to 6.9 in the 

Post-Report Period. During the same three periods, 

the standard deviation decreased from 10.2 to 5.2 and 

then to 2.7. 

Figure 9. Oklahoma City-Based Federal Judges in 

All Periods
25

Overall Findings of the 

30-City Analysis

FINDINGS

City-by-City Changes Across Periods

Booker Period to Gall Period

Consistent with the findings of the Commission’s 

2012 Booker Report, the city-level analysis demonstrated 

an overall increase in differences in sentencing practices 

from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. Specifically, 

as shown in Appendix B (p. 33), 23 of the 30 cities had 

increases in their total spreads, and 22 of 27 cities (those 

with at least five judges in all three periods) had increases 

in their standard deviations. Seven cities had decreases 

in their total spreads, and five cities had decreases in the 

standard deviations.54 Not all cities experienced increases 

or decreases in both measures. Some had an increase in 

one measure and a decrease in the other measure.

Gall Period to Post-Report Period

This trend continued from the Gall Period to 

the Post-Report Period, but at a slower rate. As shown 

in Appendix B (p. 33), 20 of the 30 cities had increases 

in their total spreads. Sixteen of the 27 cities (those 

with at least five judges in all periods) had increases in 

their standard deviations, although the magnitude of the 

increases was noticeably less than the magnitude of the 

increases from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. Ten 

cities had decreases in their total spreads, and 11 had 

FINDINGS

Results for all 30 cities, as 

depicted in the bar charts 

for the three periods 

(including the total 

spreads and standard 

deviations), are contained 

in Appendix B. 

23 CITIES

INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

7 CITIES

DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

22 CITIES

INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION

5 CITIES

DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION

20 CITIES

INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

10 CITIES

DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

16 CITIES

INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION

11 CITIES

DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION
26

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

decreases in their standard deviations.55 Just as in the 

prior period change, not all cities experienced increases 

or decreases in both measures. Some had an increase 

in one measure and a decrease in the other measure.

Booker Period to Post-Report Period

Of the 30 cities, five—Boston, Cleveland, 

Columbus, Oklahoma City, and Saint Louis—saw net 

decreases in their total spreads from the Booker Period 

to the Post-Report Period, while four (four of the 

same five, with the exception of Cleveland) saw net 

decreases in their standard deviations as well. The rest 

of the cities saw net increases in their total spreads and 

standard deviations from the Booker Period to the PostReport Period. 

Largest and Smallest Total 

Spreads and Standard Deviations

Post-Report Period

Looking at the most recent period, the PostReport Period, the city with the largest total spread 

was Philadelphia (63.8), and the city with the smallest 

total spread was Oklahoma City (6.9). The city with the 

largest standard deviation was Houston (14.6), and the 

city with the smallest standard deviation was Oklahoma 

City (2.7).

PHILADELPHIA

LARGEST SPREAD

OKLAHOMA CITY

SMALLEST SPREAD

HOUSTON

LARGEST STANDARD DEVIATION

OKLAHOMA CITY

SMALLEST STANDARD DEVIATION

25 CITIES

INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

5 CITIES

DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD

23 CITIES

INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION

4 CITIES

DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION
27

Changes for All 30 Cities 

Combined Across Periods

A similar trend of overall increasing sentencing 

differences is seen with respect to the average total 

spread and average standard deviation for all 30 cities 

combined (except for the three cities with fewer than 

five judges for at least one period, for which standard 

deviations were not reported). As reflected in Figure 

10 below, average total spreads for all 30 cities in the 

three periods grew from 18.2 in the Booker Period 

to 23.7 in the Gall Period to 27.6 in the Post-Report 

Period. Average standard deviations for the 27 cities 

(those with at least five judges in all three periods) grew 

from 5.8 in the Booker Period to 7.7 in the Gall Period 

to 8.3 in the Post-Report Period.

FINDINGS

Figure 10. Averages for All 30 Cities Combined

Booker Period Gall Period Post-Report Period

Average Total Spread 18.2 23.7 27.6

Average Standard Deviation 5.8 7.7 8.3

Seattle

Los Angeles

San Diego

Houston

Denver

Saint Louis

Chicago

Detroit Manhattan

Philadelphia

Alexandria

Atlanta

Miami

Phoenix

San Antonio

San Juan

Baltimore

Charlotte

Tampa

Dallas

Oklahoma City

Salt Lake City

San Francisco

Portland

Memphis

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Columbus

Boston

Cleveland
28 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

This report’s findings 

of overall increasing 

differences in sentencing 

practices among judges 

within the same cities 

are consistent with intradistrict findings from the 

Commission’s 2012 report. 
29

Differences in Sentencing Practices 

Among Federal Judges

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Although the trend of increasing differences among judges slowed after 2011, the increasing 

differences in sentencing practices first reported at the district level in the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report

generally persist to this day, even within the same courthouse. In particular, the Commission finds that:

CONCLUSION 1

CONCLUSION 3

From the Booker to Gall Periods, 23 of the 30 cities had increases in their total 

spreads, and 22 of 27 cities (those with at least five judges in all three periods) 

had increases in their standard deviations. From the Gall to the Post-Report 

Periods, 20 of the 30 cities had increases in their total spreads, and 16 of the 27 

cities (those with at least five judges in all periods) had increases in their standard 

deviations, although the magnitude of the increases was less than the magnitude 

of the increases from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. 

In terms of the overall changes during the 13 years, from the Booker Period to the 

Post-Report Period, 25 of the 30 cities saw a net increase in their total spreads and 

23 cities of the 27 with reported standard deviations saw a net increase in their 

standard deviations. 

CONCLUSION 2

Considering all 30 cities together as a representative sample of the country as a 

whole, the average total spreads for all 30 cities in the three periods increased 

from 18.2 in the Booker Period to 23.7 in the Gall Period to 27.6 in the Post-Report 

Period. The average standard deviations for the 27 cities (those with at least five 

judges) grew from 5.8 to 7.7 to 8.3 during the same three periods. 

CONCLUSION 4 In most cities, the length of a defendant’s sentence increasingly depends on which 

judge in the courthouse is assigned to his or her case. 
30 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

The Commission’s 2012 

Booker Report depicted 

differences among 

judges within districts 

using bubble plots and 

scatter plots. 
31

2012 Booker Report Analysis

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: 2012 Intra-District Analysis

Bubble Plot Example
32

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Scatter Plot Example
33

The results for the 30 cities, as depicted in 

the bar charts for the three periods with information 

about the total spreads and standard deviations, are 

contained in this appendix. As noted at the outset of 

this report, the 30 cities’ results are not offered for 

the purpose of comparing the cities to each other. 

Rather, the Commission’s analysis in this report is 

offered to compare judges within each city to one 

another and also to compare the extent of sentencing 

differences in each city over time. 

Seattle

Los Angeles

San Diego

Houston

Denver

Saint Louis

Chicago

Detroit

Manhattan

Philadelphia

Alexandria

Atlanta

Miami

Phoenix

San Antonio

San Juan

Baltimore

Charlotte

Tampa

Dallas

Oklahoma City

Salt Lake City

San Francisco

Portland

Memphis

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Columbus

Boston

Cleveland

City-By-City Results

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
34

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.8%

ALEX

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

ALEXANDRIA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,263 cases from Alexandria 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Alexandria’s 

total spread increased from 8.5 to 21.0, and its 

standard deviation increased from 3.5 to 7.9. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Alexandria’s total spread increased from 21.0 to 22.1, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 7.9 to 7.5.

Judges: 5

Cases: 746

Spread: 8.5

Standard Deviation: 3.5 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-17.1%

ALEX

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-29.3%

ALEX

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,058

Spread: 21.0

Standard Deviation: 7.9 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,459

Spread: 22.1

Standard Deviation: 7.5 
35

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.8%

ATL

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

ATLANTA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 4,642 cases from Atlanta 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Atlanta’s 

total spread increased from 19.6 to 31.8, and its 

standard deviation increased from 5.5 to 7.2. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Atlanta’s total spread decreased from 31.8 to 26.9, and 

its standard deviation increased from 7.2 to 9.6.

Judges: 12

Cases: 995

Spread: 19.6

Standard Deviation: 5.5

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-8.8%

ATL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.5%

ATL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 14

Cases: 1,504

Spread: 31.8

Standard Deviation: 7.2

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 15

Cases: 2,143

Spread: 26.9

Standard Deviation: 9.6

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
36

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-5.2%

BALT

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

BALTIMORE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,354 cases from Baltimore 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Baltimore’s 

total spread increased from 18.7 to 24.5, and its 

standard deviation increased from 6.7 to 8.2. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Baltimore’s total spread decreased from 24.5 to 19.7, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 8.2 to 6.7.

Judges: 6

Cases: 618

Spread: 18.7

Standard Deviation: 6.7

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-12.0%

BALT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.0%

BALT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 968

Spread: 24.5

Standard Deviation: 8.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 1,768

Spread: 19.7

Standard Deviation: 6.7
37

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.1%

BOS

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

BOSTON-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,619 cases from Boston 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Boston’s 

total spread increased from 32.2 to 35.2, and its 

standard deviation increased from 9.1 to 11.3. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Boston’s total spread decreased from 35.2 to 28.7, and 

its standard deviation decreased from 11.3 to 8.9.

Judges: 12

Cases: 830

Spread: 32.2

Standard Deviation: 9.1 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-20.8%

BOS

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-27.8%

BOS

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 11

Cases: 1,177

Spread: 35.2

Standard Deviation: 11.3

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 11

Cases: 1,612

Spread: 28.7

Standard Deviation: 8.9

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
38

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

1.1%

CHAR

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

CHARLOTTE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,527 cases from Charlotte 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Charlotte’s 

total spread increased from 8.9 to 14.1. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Charlotte’s total spread increased from 14.1 to 19.4.

Because Charlotte did not have at least five judges in 

all three periods, the standard deviations for the three 

periods are not reported.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.9%

CHAR

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.7%

CHAR

Post

Judges: 4

Cases: 709

Spread: 8.9

BOOKER PERIOD

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 3

Cases: 667

Spread: 14.1

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 3

Cases: 1,151

Spread: 19.4
39

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.1%

CHI

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

CHICAGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 6,325 cases from Chicago 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Chicago’s 

total spread increased from 31.6 to 42.7, and its 

standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 11.0. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Chicago’s total spread increased from 42.7 to 49.5, and 

its standard deviation decreased from 11.0 to 10.6.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.8%

CHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-28.1%

CHI

Post

Judges: 18

Cases: 1,341

Spread: 31.6

Standard Deviation: 7.9 

BOOKER PERIOD

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 22

Cases: 2,033

Spread: 42.7

Standard Deviation: 11.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 24

Cases: 2,951

Spread: 49.5

Standard Deviation: 10.6 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
40

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.8%

CLEV

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

CLEVELAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,908 cases from Cleveland 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Cleveland’s 

total spread decreased from 22.7 to 16.6, and its 

standard deviation decreased from 6.6 to 5.2. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Cleveland’s total spread increased from 16.6 to 19.9, 

and its standard deviation increased from 5.2 to 7.5.

Judges: 9

Cases: 924

Spread: 22.7

Standard Deviation: 6.6 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.0%

CLEV

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-12.2%

CLEV

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 744

Spread: 16.6

Standard Deviation: 5.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,240

Spread: 19.9

Standard Deviation: 7.5 
41

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.4%

COL

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

COLUMBUS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 1,672 cases from Columbus 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Columbus’s 

total spread decreased from 15.2 to 12.4, and its 

standard deviation decreased from 6.0 to 5.0. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Columbus’s total spread decreased from 12.4 to 8.7, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 5.0 to 3.1.

Judges: 5

Cases: 282

Spread: 15.2

Standard Deviation: 6.0

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-19.4%

COL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-24.6%

COL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 463

Spread: 12.4

Standard Deviation: 5.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 927

Spread: 8.7

Standard Deviation: 3.1

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
42

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

1.7%

DAL

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

DALLAS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 4,071 cases from Dallas 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Dallas’ total 

spread increased from 22.0 to 33.0, and its standard 

deviation increased from 6.6 to 10.9. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Dallas’ 

total spread increased from 33.0 to 40.3, and its 

standard deviation increased from 10.9 to 12.5.

Judges: 8

Cases: 660

Spread: 22.0

Standard Deviation: 6.6

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-3.0%

DAL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-2.1%

DAL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 904

Spread: 33.0

Standard Deviation: 10.9

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 2,507

Spread: 40.3

Standard Deviation: 12.5 
43

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.9%

DEN

Post

KEY FINDINGS

DENVER-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,417 cases from Denver 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Denver’s 

total spread increased from 4.9 to 12.7, and its standard 

deviation increased from 2.3 to 4.4. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Denver’s total spread increased from 12.7 to 17.9, and 

its standard deviation increased from 4.4 to 6.3.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.2%

DEN

Booker

Judges: 6

Cases: 751

Spread: 4.9

Standard Deviation: 2.3 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.1%

DEN

Gall GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,182

Spread: 12.7

Standard Deviation: 4.4 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 1,484

Spread: 17.9

Standard Deviation: 6.3 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
44

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.6%

DET

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

DETROIT-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,901 cases from Detroit 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Detroit’s 

total spread decreased from 34.4 to 34.1, and its 

standard deviation increased from 9.5 to 10.6. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Detroit’s total spread increased from 34.1 to 47.7, and 

its standard deviation increased from 10.6 to 11.1.

Judges: 11

Cases: 680

Spread: 34.4

Standard Deviation: 9.5

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-21.5%

DET

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-23.3%

DET

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 12

Cases: 1,011

Spread: 34.1

Standard Deviation: 10.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 18

Cases: 2,210

Spread: 47.7

Standard Deviation: 11.1
45

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

4.1%

HOU

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

HOUSTON-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 6,417 cases from Houston 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Houston’s 

total spread increased from 23.3 to 36.5, and its 

standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 12.6. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Houston’s total spread increased from 36.5 to 38.4, 

and its standard deviation increased from 12.6 to 14.6.

Judges: 10

Cases: 1,148

Spread: 23.3

Standard Deviation: 7.9

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.2%

HOU

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.9%

HOU

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 11

Cases: 2,411

Spread: 36.5

Standard Deviation: 12.6 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 11

Cases: 2,858

Spread: 38.4

Standard Deviation: 14.6

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
46

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.2%

LA

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

LOS ANGELES-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 6,791 cases from Los 

Angeles across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Los Angeles’ 

total spread increased from 29.1 to 29.3, and its 

standard deviation increased from 7.6 to 8.0. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Los 

Angeles’ total spread increased from 29.3 to 42.9, and 

its standard deviation increased from 8.0 to 11.8.

Judges: 15

Cases: 1,273

Spread: 29.1

Standard Deviation: 7.6

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.2%

LA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-26.7%

LA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 18

Cases: 2,407

Spread: 29.3

Standard Deviation: 8.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 20

Cases: 3,111

Spread: 42.9 

Standard Deviation: 11.8
47

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.0%

MAN

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

MANHATTAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 11,197 cases from 

Manhattan across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Manhattan’s 

total spread decreased from 44.8 to 34.5 and its 

standard deviation decreased from 9.2 to 8.7. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Manhattan’s total spread increased from 34.5 to 59.1, 

and its standard deviation increased from 8.7 to 12.9.

Judges: 32

Cases: 2,899

Spread: 44.8

Standard Deviation: 9.2 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-25.5%

MAN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-36.3%

MAN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 31

Cases: 3,435

Spread: 34.5

Standard Deviation: 8.7 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 38

Cases: 4,863

Spread: 59.1

Standard Deviation: 12.9

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
48

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-5.8%

MEM

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

MEMPHIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

Judges: 3

Cases: 534

Spread: 14.0

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.8%

MEM

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.4%

MEM

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 4

Cases: 980

Spread: 17.4

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 5

Cases: 1,400

Spread: 18.6

The Commission analyzed 2,914 cases from Memphis 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Memphis’ 

total spread increased from 14.0 to 17.4. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Memphis’ total spread increased from 17.4 to 18.6.

Because Memphis did not have at least five judges in 

all three periods, the standard deviations for the three 

periods are not reported.
49

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.3%

MIA

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

MIAMI-BASED FEDERAL 

JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 9,467 cases from Miami 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Miami’s total 

spread increased from 16.0 to 17.1, and its standard 

deviation increased from 4.1 to 5.2. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Miami’s total spread increased from 17.1 to 29.9, and 

its standard deviation increased from 5.2 to 9.0.

Judges: 13

Cases: 2,074

Spread: 16.0

Standard Deviation: 4.1

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.9%

MIA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.0%

MIA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 12

Cases: 2,859

Spread: 17.1

Standard Deviation: 5.2

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 15

Cases: 4,534

Spread: 29.9

Standard Deviation: 9.0 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
50

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.9%

MINN

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

MINNEAPOLIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,510 cases from 

Minneapolis across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Minneapolis’ 

total spread increased from 13.7 to 20.5, and its 

standard deviation increased from 5.1 to 6.9. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Minneapolis’ total spread decreased from 20.5 to 15.0, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 6.9 to 5.3.

Judges: 6

Cases: 606

Spread: 13.7

Standard Deviation: 5.1 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.6%

MINN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.7%

MINN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 908

Spread: 20.5

Standard Deviation: 6.9 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 996

Spread: 15.0

Standard Deviation: 5.3 
51

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-0.7%

OKC

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,605 cases from Oklahoma 

City across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Oklahoma 

City’s total spread decreased from 32.1 to 14.8, and its 

standard deviation decreased from 10.2 to 5.2.

 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Oklahoma City’s total spread decreased from 14.8 to 

6.9, and its standard deviation decreased from 5.2 to 

2.7.

Judges: 7

Cases: 436

Spread: 32.1

Standard Deviation: 10.2 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.6%

OKC

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-19.3%

OKC

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 800

Spread: 14.8

Standard Deviation: 5.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,369

Spread: 6.9

Standard Deviation: 2.7 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
52

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-11.9%

PHI

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

PHILADELPHIA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,852 cases from 

Philadelphia across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Philadelphia’s 

total spread increased from 33.8 to 53.7, and its 

standard deviation increased from 9.6 to 13.5. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Philadelphia’s total spread increased from 53.7 to 63.8, 

and its standard deviation increased from 13.5 to 13.6.

Judges: 10

Cases: 534

Spread: 33.8

Standard Deviation: 9.6 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.6%

PHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.4%

PHI

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 16

Cases: 1,004

Spread: 53.7

Standard Deviation: 13.5 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 18

Cases: 1,314

Spread: 63.8

Standard Deviation: 13.6 
53

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-3.7%

PHX

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

PHOENIX-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 7,915 cases from Phoenix 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Phoenix’s 

total spread increased from 8.7 to 25.7, and its standard 

deviation increased from 2.8 to 7.1. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Phoenix’s total spread increased from 25.7 to 27.5, and 

its standard deviation increased from 7.1 to 7.9.

Judges: 10

Cases: 1,843

Spread: 8.7

Standard Deviation: 2.8

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.4%

PHX

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.1%

PHX

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 11

Cases: 2,330

Spread: 25.7

Standard Deviation: 7.1 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 13

Cases: 3,742

Spread: 27.5

Standard Deviation: 7.9 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
54

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.1%

PITT

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

PITTSBURGH-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 2,770 cases from Pittsburgh 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Pittsburgh’s 

total spread increased from 19.7 to 32.5, and its 

standard deviation increased from 5.9 to 9.4. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Pittsburgh’s total spread decreased from 32.5 to 19.8, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 9.4 to 6.9.

Judges: 9

Cases: 629

Spread: 19.7

Standard Deviation: 5.9 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.0%

PITT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.9%

PITT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 10

Cases: 854

Spread: 32.5

Standard Deviation: 9.4 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10

Cases: 1,287

Spread: 19.8

Standard Deviation: 6.9 
55

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-11.2%

PORT

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

PORTLAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF OREGON

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,314 cases from Portland 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Portland’s 

total spread increased from 8.3 to 14.7, and its standard 

deviation increased from 3.3 to 5.8. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Portland’s total spread increased from 14.7 to 24.6, 

and its standard deviation increased from 5.8 to 7.1.

Judges: 5

Cases: 586

Spread: 8.3

Standard Deviation: 3.3 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-21.6%

PORT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-29.2%

PORT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,017

Spread: 14.7

Standard Deviation: 5.8 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10

Cases: 1,711

Spread: 24.6

Standard Deviation: 7.1 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
56

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-2.0%

STL

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SAINT LOUIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 6,007 cases from Saint 

Louis across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Saint Louis’ 

total spread increased from 11.5 to 19.6, and its 

standard deviation increased from 4.2 to 5.8. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Saint 

Louis’ total spread decreased from 19.6 to 10.4, and its 

standard deviation decreased from 5.8 to 3.6.

Judges: 8

Cases: 1,569

Spread: 11.5

Standard Deviation: 4.2 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.4%

STL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-20.0%

STL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 2,026

Spread: 19.6

Standard Deviation: 5.8

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 2,412

Spread: 10.4

Standard Deviation: 3.6
57

KEY FINDINGS

SALT LAKE CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF UTAH

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 4,665 cases from Salt Lake 

City across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Salt Lake 

City’s total spread increased from 7.8 to 14.7, and its 

standard deviation increased from 3.0 to 5.6. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Salt 

Lake City’s total spread increased from 14.7 to 20.1, 

and its standard deviation increased from 5.6 to 5.8.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.0%

SLC

Booker

Judges: 8

Cases: 1,504

Spread: 7.8

Standard Deviation: 3.0 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.1%

SLC

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-29.0%

SLC

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,428

Spread: 14.7

Standard Deviation: 5.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 1,733

Spread: 20.1

Standard Deviation: 5.8 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
58

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.1%

SANT

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SAN ANTONIO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

Judges: 3

Cases: 665

Spread: 7.5

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.3%

SANT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.2%

SANT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 3

Cases: 1,481

Spread: 7.1

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 4

Cases: 3,052

Spread: 12.2

The Commission analyzed 5,198 cases from San 

Antonio across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Antonio’s 

total spread decreased from 7.5 to 7.1. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San 

Antonio’s total spread increased from 7.1 to 12.2.

Because San Antonio did not have at least five judges 

in all three periods, the standard deviations for the 

three periods are not reported.
59

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.5%

SD

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SAN DIEGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 11,960 cases from San 

Diego across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Diego’s 

total spread increased from 13.9 to 21.3, and its 

standard deviation increased from 4.5 to 6.4. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San 

Diego’s total spread increased from 21.3 to 54.4, and 

its standard deviation increased from 6.4 to 13.0.

Judges: 9

Cases: 2,295

Spread: 13.9

Standard Deviation: 4.5 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.5%

SD

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-23.8%

SD

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 14

Cases: 5,288

Spread: 21.3

Standard Deviation: 6.4 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 16

Cases: 4,377

Spread: 54.4

Standard Deviation: 13.0

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
60

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.8%

SF

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SAN FRANCISCO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 1,880 cases from San 

Francisco across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San 

Francisco’s total spread increased from 10.0 to 18.3, 

and its standard deviation increased from 4.3 to 7.4.

 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San 

Francisco’s total spread decreased from 18.3 to 17.9, 

and its standard deviation decreased from 7.4 to 6.1.

Judges: 6

Cases: 384

Spread: 10.0

Standard Deviation: 4.3

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-12.8%

SF

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-23.8%

SF

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 5

Cases: 567

Spread: 18.3

Standard Deviation: 7.4

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 929

Spread: 17.9

Standard Deviation: 6.1 
61

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

0.7%

SAN 

JUAN

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SAN JUAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 6,460 cases from San Juan 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Juan’s 

total spread increased from 9.6 to 20.9, and its standard 

deviation increased from 3.6 to 7.2. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San 

Juan’s total spread increased from 20.9 to 22.2, and its 

standard deviation increased from 7.2 to 7.4.

Judges: 7

Cases: 923

Spread: 9.6

Standard Deviation: 3.6

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.8%

SAN 

JUAN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

1.2%

SAN 

JUAN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 1,524

Spread: 20.9

Standard Deviation: 7.2

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 4,013

Spread: 22.2

Standard Deviation: 7.4 

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
62

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-20.5%

SEA

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

SEATTLE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 3,689 cases from Seattle 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Seattle’s total 

spread decreased from 10.4 to 4.9, and its standard 

deviation decreased from 3.9 to 1.6. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Seattle’s total spread increased from 4.9 to 21.1, and 

its standard deviation increased from 1.6 to 7.1.

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,108

Spread: 10.4

Standard Deviation: 3.9 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-22.0%

SEA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-31.3%

SEA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,134

Spread: 4.9

Standard Deviation: 1.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,447

Spread: 21.1

Standard Deviation: 7.1 
63

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-0.2%

TAMPA

Booker

KEY FINDINGS

TAMPA-BASED FEDERAL 

JUDGES

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

The Commission analyzed 5,279 cases from Tampa 

across the three periods. 

From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Tampa’s total 

spread increased from 11.9 to 29.7, and its standard 

deviation increased from 3.7 to 9.6. 

From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, 

Tampa’s total spread decreased from 29.7 to 22.7, and 

its standard deviation decreased from 9.6 to 5.9.

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,283

Spread: 11.9

Standard Deviation: 3.7 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.7%

TAMPA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.6%

TAMPA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 9

Cases: 1,567

Spread: 29.7

Standard Deviation: 9.6 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10

Cases: 2,429

Spread: 22.7

Standard Deviation: 5.9

APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results
64 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

The Commission 

analyzed whether 

random assignment of 

cases resulted in even 

distribution of offense 

types among judges.
65

As discussed above, a key reason for 

studying differences in sentencing practices of judges 

within a single city—as opposed to judges in a larger 

geographical region, such as a federal judicial district 

with multiple divisions—is that, as a general practice, 

federal district judges within a single city are randomly 

assigned cases from the same pool of cases. Assuming 

a sufficiently large enough number of cases per judge, 

random assignment should generally result in each 

judge in a city having a roughly even distribution of 

guideline offense types. The Commission selected 

the 50-case minimum per judge requirement for 

each period studied for the purpose of increasing the 

likelihood that case assignment resulted in randomly 

distributed guideline offense types. 

The Commission analyzed each city’s 

sentencing data in each period to determine if random 

distribution resulted in a generally even distribution 

of cases—both among judges in each city in the 

three periods and across the three periods in each 

city with respect to the city’s total caseload. In the 

majority of cities, random assignment resulted in 

Caseload Compositions of 

30 Cities

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions

fairly even distribution of the primary four guideline 

types—§§2B1.1 (fraud and theft offenses), 2D1.1 

(drug-trafficking offenses), 2K2.1 (firearm offenses), 

and 2L1.2 (illegal reentry offenses)—as well as all 

other offense types (as a catch-all fifth category).56

This appendix contains data regarding all 30 cities’ 

judges’ caseload compositions in each period, as well 

as data about each city’s total caseload over the three 

periods. It shows that for most judges in most cities, 

their caseload compositions were generally similar. 

It likewise shows that most cities had comparable 

caseload compositions over the three periods.57 Judges 

are identified only by a four-digit number assigned by 

the Commission for research purposes.

There were some exceptions, however. 

As a result, as discussed in Appendix D (p. 101), 

the Commission conducted weighting analyses to 

determine whether those differences substantially 

contributed to differences in caseload compositions 

among the 30 cities’ judges in terms of their average 

percent differences or corresponding differences in 

the 30 cities’ total spreads and standard deviations. 
66

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

ALEXANDRIA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Booker Period Total 17.2% 41.7% 4.8% 6.7% 29.6%

Gall Period Total 16.7% 36.2% 5.7% 14.7% 26.7%

Post-Report Period Total 19.7% 31.5% 6.2% 10.8% 31.8%

Booker Period Judges

4298 18.5% 39.7% 6.0% 9.9% 25.8%

4947 18.0% 42.9% 6.2% 6.8% 26.1%

5909 16.7% 39.1% 2.9% 4.6% 36.8%

6058 15.7% 47.0% 4.3% 5.2% 27.8%

6194 16.6% 41.4% 4.8% 6.9% 30.3%

Gall Period Judges

4298 17.2% 27.2% 7.2% 12.8% 35.6%

4618 12.9% 37.1% 2.1% 20.7% 27.1%

4947 16.0% 41.7% 4.0% 16.0% 22.3%

4995 17.6% 34.3% 8.8% 14.7% 24.5%

5909 21.8% 29.1% 6.7% 15.8% 26.7%

6058 12.4% 49.6% 4.7% 13.2% 20.2%

6194 18.0% 37.1% 6.6% 10.2% 28.1%

Post-Report Period Judges

4298 18.1% 29.5% 8.6% 12.4% 31.4%

4618 17.9% 40.0% 2.1% 10.4% 29.6%

4947 10.9% 35.6% 9.7% 7.3% 36.4%

4995 23.4% 30.1% 4.8% 16.7% 24.9%

5909 19.0% 25.1% 4.6% 13.8% 37.4%

6058 19.0% 35.4% 6.1% 10.9% 28.6%

6194 30.8% 23.7% 7.6% 4.7% 33.2%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

ALEXANDRIA

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
67

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

ATLANTA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Booker Period Total 18.5% 27.8% 15.2% 8.1% 30.4%

Gall Period Total 14.7% 24.9% 12.4% 18.9% 29.1%

Post-Report Period Total 17.9% 26.3% 13.0% 15.7% 27.2%

Booker Period Judges

4045 20.7% 18.4% 14.9% 3.4% 42.5%

4219 5.5% 34.2% 27.4% 19.2% 13.7%

4515 21.8% 20.7% 14.9% 8.0% 34.5%

5243 24.5% 18.9% 13.2% 11.3% 32.1%

5556 17.6% 37.3% 17.6% 7.8% 19.6%

5627 13.8% 26.6% 14.9% 4.3% 40.4%

5981 19.2% 28.8% 17.3% 7.7% 26.9%

6027 21.5% 28.0% 12.9% 3.2% 34.4%

6082 19.2% 34.6% 12.5% 3.8% 29.8%

6210 15.3% 22.0% 10.2% 16.9% 35.6%

6217 19.6% 36.3% 15.7% 5.9% 22.5%

6312 21.6% 25.0% 11.4% 13.6% 28.4%

Gall Period Judges

4045 4.2% 26.4% 9.7% 20.8% 38.9%

4219 9.6% 11.3% 18.3% 40.0% 20.9%

4515 17.3% 37.8% 6.3% 15.0% 23.6%

4982 21.1% 18.3% 6.4% 19.3% 34.9%

5071 13.9% 16.7% 15.3% 26.4% 27.8%

5243 7.0% 30.1% 14.0% 21.0% 28.0%

5324 8.7% 40.6% 18.8% 11.6% 20.3%

5627 32.0% 20.0% 18.7% 4.0% 25.3%

5981 25.8% 31.1% 6.1% 15.2% 22.0%

6027 14.6% 18.5% 12.1% 15.9% 38.9%

6082 12.3% 25.2% 8.6% 19.6% 34.4%

6210 20.8% 9.4% 24.5% 26.4% 18.9%

6217 14.2% 25.5% 12.1% 17.7% 30.5%

6312 5.3% 31.6% 19.7% 9.2% 34.2%

Post-Report Period Judges

4219 11.3% 12.7% 7.0% 56.3% 12.7%

4413 15.8% 29.8% 21.1% 14.0% 19.3%

4515 7.4% 34.6% 21.0% 8.6% 28.4%

4735 20.0% 23.9% 11.7% 15.2% 29.1%

4982 17.8% 36.3% 10.7% 8.5% 26.7%

5155 17.7% 23.9% 14.4% 12.9% 31.1%

5222 36.4% 13.6% 9.1% 19.7% 21.2%

5243 17.4% 24.9% 10.8% 19.7% 27.2%

5324 11.8% 31.4% 9.8% 23.5% 23.5%

5556 21.1% 10.5% 12.3% 36.8% 19.3%

5981 14.6% 31.7% 9.8% 15.9% 28.0%

6027 19.3% 29.2% 14.3% 13.0% 24.2%

6082 19.3% 24.2% 13.5% 12.1% 30.9%

6149 33.3% 13.6% 9.1% 21.2% 22.7%

6217 13.1% 26.8% 19.2% 8.9% 31.9%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

ATLANTA

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
68

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

BALTIMORE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

Booker Period Total 9.1% 36.4% 22.8% 6.6% 25.1%

Gall Period Total 9.8% 36.3% 16.6% 5.7% 31.6%

Post-Report Period Total 11.9% 39.3% 15.7% 4.0% 29.1%

Booker Period Judges

4240 6.7% 37.3% 20.0% 5.3% 30.7%

4246 12.7% 30.4% 21.6% 7.8% 27.5%

4296 6.3% 45.0% 21.6% 7.2% 19.8%

5069 13.4% 32.0% 27.8% 6.2% 20.6%

5848 9.4% 34.9% 19.8% 4.7% 31.1%

6200 6.3% 37.8% 25.2% 7.9% 22.8%

Gall Period Judges

4240 5.6% 35.2% 18.5% 5.6% 35.2%

4246 12.2% 36.7% 15.4% 4.3% 31.4%

4296 7.9% 44.7% 15.8% 3.9% 27.6%

5069 4.8% 35.3% 21.0% 4.2% 34.7%

5848 11.7% 41.7% 20.9% 3.7% 22.1%

6166 25.4% . . . . 18.6% 55.9%

6200 10.9% 27.3% 12.7% 14.5% 34.5%

Post-Report Period Judges

4240 10.5% 33.3% 12.3% 3.5% 40.4%

4246 9.4% 48.8% 17.2% 2.0% 22.7%

4296 11.0% 45.4% 10.6% 4.1% 28.9%

4538 10.9% 42.0% 15.5% 4.6% 26.9%

4691 9.2% 34.9% 17.1% 5.3% 33.6%

4902 7.6% 37.4% 21.0% 6.7% 27.3%

5069 14.8% 41.8% 17.5% 2.3% 23.6%

5313 29.5% 8.2% 1.6% 1.6% 59.0%

5848 14.4% 33.0% 15.4% 4.6% 32.6%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

BALTIMORE

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
69

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

BOSTON-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Booker Period Total 8.7% 39.5% 10.2% 8.1% 33.5%

Gall Period Total 12.9% 37.6% 12.2% 8.0% 29.2%

Post-Report Period Total 14.5% 34.6% 11.5% 9.3% 30.1%

Booker Period Judges

4007 4.7% 28.1% 9.4% 10.9% 46.9%

4167 10.9% 43.6% 12.7% 5.5% 27.3%

4321 9.8% 45.1% 3.7% 3.7% 37.8%

4421 14.1% 42.4% 2.4% 8.2% 32.9%

4443 6.0% 53.0% 8.4% 6.0% 26.5%

4736 6.1% 59.1% 12.1% 7.6% 15.2%

4812 4.7% 34.4% 15.6% 14.1% 31.3%

4850 9.3% 38.7% 10.7% 5.3% 36.0%

4874 9.1% 27.3% 9.1% 13.6% 40.9%

5784 5.5% 41.8% 12.7% 5.5% 34.5%

5958 9.1% 29.9% 15.6% 10.4% 35.1%

6340 13.8% 25.9% 15.5% 6.9% 37.9%

Gall Period Judges

4007 23.7% 33.0% 12.4% 5.2% 25.8%

4167 11.0% 51.0% 10.3% 6.9% 20.7%

4321 10.4% 34.4% 17.7% 6.3% 31.3%

4421 14.1% 27.1% 20.0% 10.6% 28.2%

4736 12.2% 44.9% 11.2% 9.2% 22.4%

4812 12.4% 43.8% 6.6% 9.1% 28.1%

4850 5.7% 36.8% 11.3% 8.5% 37.7%

4874 11.4% 36.0% 14.9% 7.0% 30.7%

5784 18.6% 21.6% 15.5% 10.3% 34.0%

5958 10.4% 36.8% 8.5% 8.5% 35.8%

6340 14.3% 39.3% 9.8% 7.1% 29.5%

Post-Report Period Judges

4007 23.0% 34.1% 13.3% 5.2% 24.4%

4135 13.7% 26.6% 13.7% 7.9% 38.1%

4321 14.6% 25.5% 12.7% 7.6% 39.5%

4421 13.9% 39.8% 9.0% 13.3% 24.1%

4736 14.5% 35.5% 10.1% 7.2% 32.6%

4812 14.9% 36.3% 16.1% 8.3% 24.4%

4850 13.5% 32.4% 10.1% 11.5% 32.4%

4874 14.9% 34.3% 6.0% 13.4% 31.3%

5784 14.0% 33.5% 10.1% 7.3% 35.2%

5958 16.4% 32.1% 14.9% 10.4% 26.1%

6340 8.8% 46.4% 8.8% 11.6% 24.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

BOSTON

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
70

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CHARLOTTE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Booker Period Total 6.3% 37.7% 28.9% 8.7% 18.3%

Gall Period Total 14.4% 35.7% 18.7% 12.0% 19.2%

Post-Report Period Total 12.7% 31.6% 18.0% 10.9% 26.8%

Booker Period Judges

4541 5.5% 24.8% 34.9% 12.8% 22.0%

5064 4.7% 40.6% 30.5% 7.0% 17.2%

5437 9.2% 29.3% 35.4% 11.8% 14.4%

5442 4.9% 49.8% 19.3% 4.9% 21.0%

Gall Period Judges

4541 20.3% 30.1% 16.7% 11.8% 21.1%

5437 11.7% 29.1% 22.6% 14.8% 21.7%

5442 9.9% 50.8% 16.8% 8.9% 13.6%

Post-Report Period Judges

4541 17.2% 26.0% 18.0% 11.8% 27.0%

5437 14.1% 23.1% 19.6% 12.5% 30.7%

5442 5.5% 49.5% 15.8% 7.9% 21.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CHARLOTTE

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
71

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CHICAGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Booker Period Total 17.4% 36.2% 5.7% 7.8% 33.0%

Gall Period Total 21.2% 32.1% 4.5% 14.3% 27.9%

Post-Report Period Total 27.7% 29.3% 7.9% 10.5% 24.6%

Booker Period Judges

4076 21.1% 26.8% 4.2% 7.0% 40.8%

4123 11.9% 32.1% 11.9% 9.5% 34.5%

4336 12.2% 44.6% 4.1% 9.5% 29.7%

4506 18.3% 39.4% 4.2% 11.3% 26.8%

4513 15.3% 37.5% 5.6% 8.3% 33.3%

4649 21.3% 37.1% 5.6% 6.7% 29.2%

4763 11.1% 48.9% 6.7% 6.7% 26.7%

4839 19.5% 42.9% 5.2% 9.1% 23.4%

4841 13.7% 39.7% 6.8% . . 39.7%

4989 8.8% 29.8% . . 7.0% 54.4%

5032 25.9% 20.7% 5.2% 8.6% 39.7%

5107 21.2% 47.0% 1.5% 4.5% 25.8%

5135 13.1% 42.6% 8.2% 9.8% 26.2%

5447 21.5% 30.4% 7.6% 10.1% 30.4%

5639 25.6% 33.3% 3.8% 9.0% 28.2%

5746 19.4% 19.4% 6.0% 11.9% 43.3%

5899 16.5% 35.2% 7.7% 6.6% 34.1%

6131 16.9% 37.3% 4.8% 6.0% 34.9%

Gall Period Judges

4076 18.3% 44.2% 0.8% 13.3% 23.3%

4123 29.9% 35.9% 0.9% 10.3% 23.1%

4143 31.4% 25.5% 5.9% 11.8% 25.5%

4336 19.8% 39.6% 2.8% 8.5% 29.2%

4506 19.8% 31.3% 6.3% 17.7% 25.0%

4516 32.2% 19.5% 10.3% 13.8% 24.1%

4643 14.0% 32.3% 23.7% 11.8% 18.3%

4649 12.0% 38.7% 4.0% 16.0% 29.3%

4763 19.2% 39.4% 2.9% 9.6% 28.8%

4839 17.0% 40.9% 4.5% 12.5% 25.0%

4841 14.8% 28.1% 0.8% 15.6% 40.6%

4989 26.1% 14.5% 8.7% 21.7% 29.0%

5032 31.8% 21.2% 3.5% 12.9% 30.6%

5135 9.3% 41.1% 4.7% 13.1% 31.8%

5430 26.8% 17.9% 3.6% 26.8% 25.0%

5447 16.4% 28.8% 5.5% 20.5% 28.8%

5611 18.6% 29.9% 2.1% 16.5% 33.0%

5639 33.3% 23.4% 2.7% 13.5% 27.0%

5746 19.3% 38.5% 3.7% 11.0% 27.5%

5899 19.8% 39.6% 3.1% 15.6% 21.9%

6131 17.0% 33.0% 1.1% 13.8% 35.1%

6158 29.6% 19.7% 4.2% 18.3% 28.2%

Post-Report Period Judges

4123 29.7% 33.1% 5.1% 11.9% 20.3%

4143 31.1% 14.8% 14.8% 18.0% 21.3%

4188 24.8% 23.4% 8.8% 9.5% 33.6%

4336 23.5% 34.6% 8.1% 5.9% 27.9%

4506 24.8% 39.7% 6.6% 8.3% 20.7%

4516 32.6% 27.1% 3.5% 12.5% 24.3%

4643 23.3% 26.2% 16.3% 15.1% 19.2%

4649 35.5% 16.4% 7.9% 10.5% 29.6%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CHICAGO

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
72

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

CHICAGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued

4143 31.4% 25.5% 5.9% 11.8% 25.5%

4336 19.8% 39.6% 2.8% 8.5% 29.2%

4506 19.8% 31.3% 6.3% 17.7% 25.0%

4516 32.2% 19.5% 10.3% 13.8% 24.1%

4643 14.0% 32.3% 23.7% 11.8% 18.3%

4649 12.0% 38.7% 4.0% 16.0% 29.3%

4763 19.2% 39.4% 2.9% 9.6% 28.8%

4839 17.0% 40.9% 4.5% 12.5% 25.0%

4841 14.8% 28.1% 0.8% 15.6% 40.6%

4989 26.1% 14.5% 8.7% 21.7% 29.0%

5032 31.8% 21.2% 3.5% 12.9% 30.6%

5135 9.3% 41.1% 4.7% 13.1% 31.8%

5430 26.8% 17.9% 3.6% 26.8% 25.0%

5447 16.4% 28.8% 5.5% 20.5% 28.8%

5611 18.6% 29.9% 2.1% 16.5% 33.0%

5639 33.3% 23.4% 2.7% 13.5% 27.0%

5746 19.3% 38.5% 3.7% 11.0% 27.5%

5899 19.8% 39.6% 3.1% 15.6% 21.9%

6131 17.0% 33.0% 1.1% 13.8% 35.1%

6158 29.6% 19.7% 4.2% 18.3% 28.2%

Post-Report Period Judges

4123 29.7% 33.1% 5.1% 11.9% 20.3%

4143 31.1% 14.8% 14.8% 18.0% 21.3%

4188 24.8% 23.4% 8.8% 9.5% 33.6%

4336 23.5% 34.6% 8.1% 5.9% 27.9%

4506 24.8% 39.7% 6.6% 8.3% 20.7%

4516 32.6% 27.1% 3.5% 12.5% 24.3%

4643 23.3% 26.2% 16.3% 15.1% 19.2%

4649 35.5% 16.4% 7.9% 10.5% 29.6%

4760 35.3% 15.4% 8.8% 9.6% 30.9%

4763 26.0% 26.6% 5.8% 9.1% 32.5%

4839 28.5% 34.7% 6.9% 8.3% 21.5%

4841 26.0% 25.2% 7.6% 12.2% 29.0%

4989 22.7% 33.3% 6.1% 16.7% 21.2%

5032 20.2% 48.8% 2.4% 10.7% 17.9%

5135 16.7% 37.8% 9.0% 7.7% 28.8%

5430 24.8% 32.2% 3.3% 15.7% 24.0%

5486 28.8% 24.7% 15.1% 11.0% 20.5%

5611 35.0% 28.5% 6.5% 9.8% 20.3%

5639 25.4% 33.9% 6.8% 10.2% 23.7%

5694 22.7% 30.3% 9.1% 12.1% 25.8%

5746 26.4% 33.3% 9.3% 7.8% 23.3%

5969 28.7% 15.8% 10.9% 8.9% 35.6%

6106 30.5% 38.3% 4.7% 9.4% 17.2%

6131 35.0% 30.0% 8.9% 8.9% 17.2%

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
73

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CLEVELAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Booker Period Total 15.8% 33.9% 21.3% 3.0% 26.0%

Gall Period Total 17.6% 21.8% 29.8% 5.0% 25.8%

Post-Report Period Total 14.7% 30.0% 24.2% 2.0% 29.1%

Booker Period Judges

4471 12.0% 40.7% 16.7% 2.8% 27.8%

4517 22.6% 28.3% 17.0% 7.5% 24.5%

4688 33.3% 23.8% 17.9% 8.3% 16.7%

5086 17.7% 31.5% 19.4% 4.8% 26.6%

5235 11.3% 33.0% 33.0% 0.9% 21.7%

5408 13.7% 30.4% 26.5% 1.0% 28.4%

5489 17.5% 28.9% 27.8% . . 25.8%

5591 10.7% 43.0% 13.4% 2.0% 30.9%

6049 11.9% 36.6% 21.8% 3.0% 26.7%

Gall Period Judges

4471 15.2% 26.6% 19.0% 8.9% 30.4%

4688 16.3% 27.6% 32.7% 2.0% 21.4%

5086 25.0% 8.7% 35.9% 6.5% 23.9%

5235 13.8% 29.4% 31.2% 2.8% 22.9%

5408 16.0% 18.5% 33.3% 6.2% 25.9%

5489 28.4% 10.2% 18.2% 2.3% 40.9%

5591 17.3% 30.9% 30.9% 2.7% 18.2%

6049 9.2% 18.4% 35.6% 10.3% 26.4%

Post-Report Period Judges

4688 13.2% 34.3% 21.9% 1.7% 28.9%

5086 11.2% 33.6% 29.3% 3.4% 22.4%

5235 16.2% 37.1% 22.8% 0.8% 23.2%

5408 16.3% 25.4% 21.5% 2.9% 34.0%

5591 13.0% 19.5% 25.5% 1.5% 40.5%

6049 16.4% 29.0% 27.1% 2.8% 24.8%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

CLEVELAND

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
74

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

COLUMBUS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Booker Period Total 17.7% 36.9% 17.0% 3.5% 24.8%

Gall Period Total 14.9% 32.0% 10.6% 10.2% 32.4%

Post-Report Period Total 12.0% 29.8% 16.6% 7.8% 33.9%

Booker Period Judges

4285 22.6% 45.3% 18.9% 3.8% 9.4%

4301 16.7% 28.3% 15.0% 8.3% 31.7%

5595 26.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.0% 30.0%

5771 19.2% 44.2% 11.5% . . 25.0%

5930 7.5% 40.3% 22.4% 3.0% 26.9%

Gall Period Judges

4285 22.0% 37.8% 7.3% 6.1% 26.8%

4301 13.3% 41.3% 6.7% 10.7% 28.0%

5595 14.3% 29.8% 16.7% 10.7% 28.6%

5771 13.8% 26.3% 12.5% 12.5% 35.0%

5930 9.8% 27.2% 9.8% 10.9% 42.4%

6261 18.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 32.0%

Post-Report Period Judges

4285 7.8% 33.0% 17.9% 6.1% 35.2%

4301 11.6% 34.1% 17.7% 10.4% 26.2%

5462 8.4% 26.5% 18.1% 10.8% 36.1%

5595 16.2% 29.1% 10.8% 7.4% 36.5%

5771 14.5% 24.8% 14.5% 6.8% 39.3%

5930 10.8% 31.8% 20.9% 4.7% 31.8%

6261 15.9% 22.7% 15.9% 10.2% 35.2%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

COLUMBUS

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
75

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DALLAS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Booker Period Total 24.2% 19.8% 13.0% 12.1% 30.8%

Gall Period Total 24.4% 19.5% 11.6% 15.0% 29.4%

Post-Report Period Total 13.1% 33.6% 15.1% 19.6% 18.6%

Booker Period Judges

4025 17.6% 25.3% 29.7% 6.6% 20.9%

4121 30.9% 17.0% 9.6% 12.8% 29.8%

4840 23.7% 31.6% 9.2% 10.5% 25.0%

5058 18.3% 13.4% 12.2% 18.3% 37.8%

5525 31.9% 12.5% 11.1% 13.9% 30.6%

5775 27.0% 27.0% 9.0% 9.0% 28.1%

6281 24.0% 22.7% 8.0% 8.0% 37.3%

6349 21.0% 8.6% 13.6% 18.5% 38.3%

Gall Period Judges

4121 11.5% 42.7% 7.6% 14.5% 23.7%

5058 22.7% 13.5% 18.4% 10.6% 34.8%

5525 34.5% 9.2% 10.6% 13.4% 32.4%

5775 35.7% 12.4% 13.2% 14.0% 24.8%

5879 27.3% 14.1% 6.1% 24.2% 28.3%

6281 22.2% 20.5% 9.4% 16.2% 31.6%

6349 17.9% 23.4% 13.8% 15.2% 29.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4121 11.4% 38.2% 15.5% 15.5% 19.4%

5058 14.6% 29.8% 18.9% 19.2% 17.5%

5525 16.4% 31.7% 17.6% 16.4% 17.9%

5775 11.9% 32.2% 17.7% 20.9% 17.4%

5879 12.8% 37.3% 4.7% 24.5% 20.6%

6281 10.9% 26.5% 22.4% 21.1% 19.2%

6349 13.4% 37.2% 11.8% 19.4% 18.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DALLAS

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
76

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DENVER-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Booker Period Total 6.0% 16.1% 19.0% 33.2% 25.7%

Gall Period Total 6.4% 13.6% 17.3% 40.6% 22.1%

Post-Report Period Total 8.6% 15.8% 25.1% 27.1% 23.4%

Booker Period Judges

4100 7.2% 30.4% 15.2% 22.5% 24.6%

5045 8.6% 10.2% 18.0% 41.4% 21.9%

5088 4.6% 10.8% 16.9% 34.6% 33.1%

5312 4.2% 16.0% 19.4% 35.4% 25.0%

5625 3.8% 15.2% 22.8% 34.2% 24.1%

6317 6.8% 12.9% 23.5% 31.8% 25.0%

Gall Period Judges

4563 6.5% 9.1% 15.7% 47.4% 21.3%

5045 6.4% 16.2% 18.4% 38.9% 20.1%

5312 8.3% 5.2% 15.6% 43.8% 27.1%

5725 3.6% 19.3% 15.7% 38.6% 22.9%

6022 3.4% 10.2% 25.9% 45.6% 15.0%

6154 10.4% 16.7% 16.7% 21.9% 34.4%

6317 8.0% 16.0% 14.1% 40.4% 21.6%

Post-Report Period Judges

4307 6.5% 21.2% 23.4% 22.3% 26.6%

4563 6.8% 8.5% 30.5% 25.4% 28.8%

5045 8.7% 17.5% 27.9% 24.0% 21.9%

5325 8.8% 14.0% 31.6% 28.7% 16.9%

5725 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 28.2% 27.4%

5871 5.4% 16.2% 27.7% 25.4% 25.4%

6022 7.8% 18.3% 23.7% 32.0% 18.3%

6154 13.3% 6.0% 16.9% 28.9% 34.9%

6317 9.1% 21.8% 23.4% 27.9% 17.8%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DENVER

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
77

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DETROIT-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Booker Period Total 17.1% 30.7% 14.4% 6.0% 31.8%

Gall Period Total 18.6% 33.3% 13.1% 5.2% 29.8%

Post-Report Period Total 19.6% 21.6% 25.3% 5.3% 28.2%

Booker Period Judges

4046 12.7% 23.6% 25.5% 9.1% 29.1%

4442 6.6% 23.0% 16.4% 9.8% 44.3%

4459 24.2% 30.6% 9.7% 8.1% 27.4%

4462 20.6% 23.8% 23.8% 4.8% 27.0%

4601 16.7% 42.4% 10.6% 7.6% 22.7%

5037 26.4% 20.8% 15.1% 9.4% 28.3%

5238 15.4% 50.0% 13.5% 1.9% 19.2%

5400 14.0% 34.9% 9.3% 1.2% 40.7%

5406 23.0% 24.6% 18.0% 6.6% 27.9%

5550 9.8% 32.8% 8.2% 4.9% 44.3%

5984 20.0% 30.0% 11.7% 5.0% 33.3%

Gall Period Judges

4046 12.9% 34.1% 17.6% 11.8% 23.5%

4442 6.9% 44.6% 13.9% 3.0% 31.7%

4459 23.6% 36.0% 15.7% 4.5% 20.2%

4462 34.8% 30.4% 14.5% 2.9% 17.4%

4601 20.0% 47.7% 9.2% 3.1% 20.0%

4945 17.0% 34.0% 20.8% 3.8% 24.5%

5037 18.3% 38.0% 12.7% 5.6% 25.4%

5238 26.8% 28.0% 12.2% 8.5% 24.4%

5400 11.4% 32.9% 4.0% 4.0% 47.7%

5406 24.2% 20.0% 10.5% 7.4% 37.9%

5504 22.2% 25.9% 17.3% 2.5% 32.1%

5550 14.1% 31.0% 18.3% 5.6% 31.0%

Post-Report Period Judges

4046 18.6% 16.8% 22.1% 2.7% 39.8%

4442 20.9% 29.9% 9.0% 5.6% 34.5%

4459 27.2% 11.6% 14.3% 6.1% 40.8%

4462 15.7% 27.8% 13.0% 12.2% 31.3%

4601 20.8% 24.5% 13.2% 11.3% 30.2%

4762 22.1% 17.2% 17.2% 4.9% 38.5%

5037 10.5% 36.8% 14.7% 6.3% 31.6%

5238 16.7% 22.7% 22.0% 6.8% 31.8%

5333 20.8% 23.4% 32.5% 5.2% 18.2%

5400 23.4% 27.0% 21.6% 1.8% 26.1%

5406 22.4% 25.9% 16.4% 7.8% 27.6%

5504 25.4% 19.8% 22.2% 4.0% 28.6%

5550 25.4% 26.8% 16.7% 5.8% 25.4%

5904 10.7% 15.0% 61.5% 1.3% 11.5%

5984 21.2% 28.5% 17.9% 5.3% 27.2%

6080 19.6% 12.5% 41.1% 5.4% 21.4%

6148 21.9% 18.0% 21.9% 9.4% 28.9%

6153 13.4% 7.6% 59.7% . . 19.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

DETROIT

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
78

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

HOUSTON-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Booker Period Total 7.8% 20.3% 17.2% 24.0% 30.7%

Gall Period Total 8.0% 10.9% 8.3% 51.2% 21.6%

Post-Report Period Total 11.4% 12.0% 8.1% 49.1% 19.5%

Booker Period Judges

4104 11.6% 24.2% 22.1% 17.9% 24.2%

4166 8.0% 23.0% 17.0% 17.0% 35.0%

4281 7.2% 24.7% 18.6% 25.8% 23.7%

4370 9.4% 28.3% 22.8% 15.7% 23.6%

4615 5.2% 22.2% 16.3% 14.8% 41.5%

4674 5.4% 21.3% 10.0% 38.9% 24.3%

4861 7.3% 14.6% 16.7% 19.8% 41.7%

5846 3.4% 14.8% 21.6% 29.5% 30.7%

5857 10.6% 9.4% 22.4% 20.0% 37.6%

6081 14.0% 12.8% 15.1% 25.6% 32.6%

Gall Period Judges

4104 6.3% 9.2% 6.7% 60.5% 17.2%

4166 6.5% 7.2% 7.2% 59.7% 19.4%

4281 6.3% 11.7% 9.3% 46.8% 25.9%

4370 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 52.0% 26.8%

4615 14.7% 11.5% 7.9% 46.6% 19.4%

4674 9.7% 14.0% 8.2% 48.0% 20.1%

4861 9.2% 5.5% 12.4% 49.5% 23.4%

5111 5.8% 16.4% 9.1% 54.5% 14.2%

5846 3.7% 14.6% 8.1% 52.8% 20.7%

5857 13.7% 15.4% 9.4% 17.9% 43.6%

6081 8.5% 4.5% 6.5% 62.3% 18.1%

Post-Report Period Judges

4104 16.7% 10.4% 5.6% 51.7% 15.6%

4166 9.9% 13.2% 8.0% 44.3% 24.5%

4281 9.2% 13.6% 6.5% 53.1% 17.7%

4370 10.2% 10.2% 8.3% 53.1% 18.1%

4615 11.4% 10.8% 8.5% 50.0% 19.3%

4674 9.6% 13.3% 7.0% 54.2% 15.9%

4861 12.4% 6.8% 6.4% 59.0% 15.4%

5111 14.0% 11.9% 10.4% 47.5% 16.2%

5846 6.7% 19.2% 9.9% 43.8% 20.4%

5857 18.1% 18.8% 9.4% 6.5% 47.1%

6081 10.4% 5.0% 9.6% 56.5% 18.5%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

HOUSTON

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
79

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

LOS ANGELES-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Booker Period Total 14.7% 25.8% 6.8% 15.9% 36.8%

Gall Period Total 18.2% 35.5% 5.7% 8.3% 32.3%

Post-Report Period Total 21.8% 37.0% 5.9% 7.1% 28.2%

Booker Period Judges

4273 10.6% 41.5% 6.4% 11.7% 29.8%

4453 16.1% 12.5% 8.9% 16.1% 46.4%

4592 22.9% 21.4% 4.3% 21.4% 30.0%

4710 10.8% 21.6% 6.9% 16.7% 44.1%

4787 12.4% 25.8% 9.3% 17.5% 35.1%

4922 10.5% 22.4% 10.5% 15.8% 40.8%

5028 14.7% 29.3% 4.0% 17.3% 34.7%

5157 12.5% 33.3% 10.4% 12.5% 31.3%

5247 18.6% 34.0% 2.1% 17.5% 27.8%

5435 11.5% 17.7% 8.3% 12.5% 50.0%

5484 16.9% 32.6% 4.5% 18.0% 28.1%

5542 25.4% 16.4% 4.5% 20.9% 32.8%

5755 11.2% 36.0% 7.9% 10.1% 34.8%

5919 19.1% 11.2% 9.0% 16.9% 43.8%

5943 12.5% 22.5% 3.8% 16.3% 45.0%

Gall Period Judges

4273 12.7% 48.1% 4.4% 4.4% 30.4%

4592 21.3% 36.8% 7.7% 7.7% 26.5%

4680 17.9% 39.8% 5.7% 4.9% 31.7%

4787 16.7% 28.9% 8.8% 7.0% 38.6%

5028 11.1% 49.8% 3.4% 6.8% 29.0%

5157 23.5% 20.0% 4.3% 8.7% 43.5%

5247 9.0% 41.9% 5.2% 14.2% 29.7%

5435 18.5% 41.7% 4.6% 5.6% 29.6%

5484 16.3% 28.6% 6.1% 13.6% 35.4%

5533 21.0% 46.8% 3.2% 6.5% 22.6%

5542 28.6% 25.5% 5.1% 10.2% 30.6%

5646 19.1% 30.6% 5.8% 18.5% 26.0%

5903 24.6% 27.0% 7.1% 3.2% 38.1%

5919 16.7% 23.1% 9.3% 14.8% 36.1%

5939 16.3% 30.8% 7.6% 7.0% 38.4%

5943 24.2% 43.0% 3.6% 5.5% 23.6%

6146 18.9% 26.8% 5.5% 2.4% 46.5%

6280 23.4% 39.4% 4.3% 5.3% 27.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4273 20.3% 38.6% 3.9% 5.2% 32.0%

4592 24.3% 29.7% 7.4% 6.8% 31.8%

4632 12.3% 37.0% 16.4% 8.2% 26.0%

4680 31.7% 32.5% 3.3% 5.7% 26.8%

4787 15.4% 48.5% 3.8% 6.2% 26.2%

4913 17.8% 45.4% 8.1% 6.5% 22.2%

5028 20.3% 42.9% 3.3% 6.6% 26.9%

5053 20.7% 39.6% 11.7% 5.4% 22.5%

5157 32.6% 22.0% 3.5% 7.1% 34.8%

5166 25.5% 45.1% 6.9% 4.9% 17.6%

5247 27.9% 34.7% 6.3% 2.7% 28.4%

5435 25.0% 35.0% 3.3% 3.3% 33.3%

5484 15.0% 38.1% 7.1% 9.7% 30.1%

5542 10.7% 38.1% 6.0% 7.7% 37.5%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

LOS ANGELES

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
80

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

5943 12.5% 22.5% 3.8% 16.3% 45.0%

Gall Period Judges

4273 12.7% 48.1% 4.4% 4.4% 30.4%

4592 21.3% 36.8% 7.7% 7.7% 26.5%

4680 17.9% 39.8% 5.7% 4.9% 31.7%

4787 16.7% 28.9% 8.8% 7.0% 38.6%

5028 11.1% 49.8% 3.4% 6.8% 29.0%

5157 23.5% 20.0% 4.3% 8.7% 43.5%

5247 9.0% 41.9% 5.2% 14.2% 29.7%

5435 18.5% 41.7% 4.6% 5.6% 29.6%

5484 16.3% 28.6% 6.1% 13.6% 35.4%

5533 21.0% 46.8% 3.2% 6.5% 22.6%

5542 28.6% 25.5% 5.1% 10.2% 30.6%

5646 19.1% 30.6% 5.8% 18.5% 26.0%

5903 24.6% 27.0% 7.1% 3.2% 38.1%

5919 16.7% 23.1% 9.3% 14.8% 36.1%

5939 16.3% 30.8% 7.6% 7.0% 38.4%

5943 24.2% 43.0% 3.6% 5.5% 23.6%

6146 18.9% 26.8% 5.5% 2.4% 46.5%

6280 23.4% 39.4% 4.3% 5.3% 27.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4273 20.3% 38.6% 3.9% 5.2% 32.0%

4592 24.3% 29.7% 7.4% 6.8% 31.8%

4632 12.3% 37.0% 16.4% 8.2% 26.0%

4680 31.7% 32.5% 3.3% 5.7% 26.8%

4787 15.4% 48.5% 3.8% 6.2% 26.2%

4913 17.8% 45.4% 8.1% 6.5% 22.2%

5028 20.3% 42.9% 3.3% 6.6% 26.9%

5053 20.7% 39.6% 11.7% 5.4% 22.5%

5157 32.6% 22.0% 3.5% 7.1% 34.8%

5166 25.5% 45.1% 6.9% 4.9% 17.6%

5247 27.9% 34.7% 6.3% 2.7% 28.4%

5435 25.0% 35.0% 3.3% 3.3% 33.3%

5484 15.0% 38.1% 7.1% 9.7% 30.1%

5542 10.7% 38.1% 6.0% 7.7% 37.5%

5646 26.7% 27.7% 3.9% 17.5% 24.3%

5903 25.8% 35.2% 5.5% 9.3% 24.2%

5919 14.5% 39.6% 8.2% 6.3% 31.4%

5939 18.7% 34.4% 3.8% 11.0% 32.1%

6146 22.9% 38.9% 6.9% 2.9% 28.6%

6282 21.5% 42.3% 8.1% 6.0% 22.1%

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

LOS ANGELES-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued
81

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MANHATTAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Booker Period Total 13.5% 40.2% 9.1% 12.2% 25.0%

Gall Period Total 17.8% 38.0% 7.1% 14.6% 22.4%

Post-Report Period Total 21.7% 43.2% 7.4% 3.9% 23.8%

Booker Period Judges

4169 18.6% 40.2% 8.2% 8.2% 24.7%

4173 12.1% 51.5% 5.3% 14.4% 16.7%

4178 18.9% 40.6% 9.4% 11.3% 19.8%

4215 13.4% 41.1% 6.3% 6.3% 33.0%

4226 24.6% 34.4% 8.2% 13.1% 19.7%

4341 3.2% 64.5% 1.6% 12.9% 17.7%

4436 19.1% 32.6% 15.7% 15.7% 16.9%

4551 6.3% 46.9% . . 4.7% 42.2%

4626 12.5% 30.0% 16.3% 12.5% 28.8%

4789 10.7% 29.3% 8.0% 6.7% 45.3%

4838 12.8% 31.4% 11.6% 15.1% 29.1%

4909 11.2% 35.7% 12.2% 10.2% 30.6%

5173 8.3% 33.3% 10.0% 21.7% 26.7%

5183 9.4% 38.5% 8.3% 18.8% 25.0%

5231 10.0% 52.5% 2.5% 13.8% 21.3%

5261 18.5% 29.6% 9.3% 12.0% 30.6%

5355 12.9% 38.8% 10.3% 10.3% 27.6%

5507 5.9% 56.4% 8.9% 11.9% 16.8%

5522 21.4% 38.8% 6.1% 12.2% 21.4%

5590 15.5% 60.6% . . 9.9% 14.1%

5635 24.2% 32.3% 7.3% 8.1% 28.2%

5669 12.7% 35.4% 10.1% 11.4% 30.4%

5681 10.1% 59.7% 6.2% 10.1% 14.0%

5720 10.5% 41.0% 11.4% 11.4% 25.7%

5727 11.7% 45.6% 5.8% 17.5% 19.4%

5778 17.6% 25.5% 13.7% 5.9% 37.3%

5822 11.1% 31.5% 3.7% 13.0% 40.7%

6071 7.9% 36.6% 19.8% 9.9% 25.7%

6084 8.1% 22.6% 32.3% 21.0% 16.1%

6188 17.2% 29.0% 6.5% 11.8% 35.5%

6305 12.0% 40.0% 12.0% 16.0% 20.0%

6329 13.3% 47.6% 7.6% 20.0% 11.4%

Gall Period Judges

4169 17.6% 42.9% 7.6% 11.2% 20.6%

4173 14.2% 37.8% 11.8% 15.7% 20.5%

4178 21.0% 25.2% 8.4% 23.5% 21.8%

4190 18.6% 27.1% 8.5% 22.0% 23.7%

4215 18.5% 23.1% 6.2% 20.0% 32.3%

4226 13.2% 39.7% 4.4% 16.9% 25.7%

4436 18.5% 45.2% 4.0% 10.5% 21.8%

4469 16.2% 35.4% 6.1% 20.2% 22.2%

4551 27.9% 29.1% 8.1% 11.6% 23.3%

4626 13.2% 43.9% 4.4% 9.6% 28.9%

4761 19.7% 29.1% 11.1% 9.4% 30.8%

4909 12.6% 36.2% 5.5% 18.9% 26.8%

5164 7.5% 41.8% 14.9% 14.9% 20.9%

5183 5.1% 45.8% 15.3% 20.3% 13.6%

5231 15.4% 49.6% 7.7% 13.7% 13.7%

5261 19.5% 28.9% 5.5% 10.2% 35.9%

5355 19.6% 44.6% 1.8% 16.1% 17.9%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MANHATTAN

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
82

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

4909 11.2% 35.7% 12.2% 10.2% 30.6%

5173 8.3% 33.3% 10.0% 21.7% 26.7%

5183 9.4% 38.5% 8.3% 18.8% 25.0%

5231 10.0% 52.5% 2.5% 13.8% 21.3%

5261 18.5% 29.6% 9.3% 12.0% 30.6%

5355 12.9% 38.8% 10.3% 10.3% 27.6%

5507 5.9% 56.4% 8.9% 11.9% 16.8%

5522 21.4% 38.8% 6.1% 12.2% 21.4%

5590 15.5% 60.6% . . 9.9% 14.1%

5635 24.2% 32.3% 7.3% 8.1% 28.2%

5669 12.7% 35.4% 10.1% 11.4% 30.4%

5681 10.1% 59.7% 6.2% 10.1% 14.0%

5720 10.5% 41.0% 11.4% 11.4% 25.7%

5727 11.7% 45.6% 5.8% 17.5% 19.4%

5778 17.6% 25.5% 13.7% 5.9% 37.3%

5822 11.1% 31.5% 3.7% 13.0% 40.7%

6071 7.9% 36.6% 19.8% 9.9% 25.7%

6084 8.1% 22.6% 32.3% 21.0% 16.1%

6188 17.2% 29.0% 6.5% 11.8% 35.5%

6305 12.0% 40.0% 12.0% 16.0% 20.0%

6329 13.3% 47.6% 7.6% 20.0% 11.4%

Gall Period Judges

4169 17.6% 42.9% 7.6% 11.2% 20.6%

4173 14.2% 37.8% 11.8% 15.7% 20.5%

4178 21.0% 25.2% 8.4% 23.5% 21.8%

4190 18.6% 27.1% 8.5% 22.0% 23.7%

4215 18.5% 23.1% 6.2% 20.0% 32.3%

4226 13.2% 39.7% 4.4% 16.9% 25.7%

4436 18.5% 45.2% 4.0% 10.5% 21.8%

4469 16.2% 35.4% 6.1% 20.2% 22.2%

4551 27.9% 29.1% 8.1% 11.6% 23.3%

4626 13.2% 43.9% 4.4% 9.6% 28.9%

4761 19.7% 29.1% 11.1% 9.4% 30.8%

4909 12.6% 36.2% 5.5% 18.9% 26.8%

5164 7.5% 41.8% 14.9% 14.9% 20.9%

5183 5.1% 45.8% 15.3% 20.3% 13.6%

5231 15.4% 49.6% 7.7% 13.7% 13.7%

5261 19.5% 28.9% 5.5% 10.2% 35.9%

5355 19.6% 44.6% 1.8% 16.1% 17.9%

5507 28.7% 35.3% 4.4% 11.0% 20.6%

5522 14.4% 42.2% 6.7% 17.8% 18.9%

5590 24.1% 44.4% 5.6% 11.1% 14.8%

5635 27.6% 37.8% 11.8% 10.2% 12.6%

5669 16.9% 46.6% 4.7% 13.5% 18.2%

5681 15.1% 58.4% 5.4% 13.9% 7.2%

5720 20.0% 34.3% 4.3% 11.4% 30.0%

5727 16.3% 36.6% 8.9% 19.5% 18.7%

5778 11.6% 30.6% 6.6% 19.0% 32.2%

6071 25.0% 26.0% 8.7% 13.5% 26.9%

6084 27.3% 23.1% 9.1% 9.8% 30.8%

6188 15.8% 43.9% 6.1% 20.2% 14.0%

6305 14.3% 41.6% 5.2% 11.7% 27.3%

6329 12.5% 38.2% 8.1% 15.4% 25.7%

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued
83

Post-Report Period Judges

4169 13.9% 51.0% 8.8% 3.1% 23.2%

4173 36.5% 28.4% 2.7% 2.7% 29.7%

4178 22.2% 38.1% 6.3% 7.9% 25.4%

4190 17.4% 38.4% 8.7% 2.3% 33.1%

4215 39.7% 27.8% 6.6% 7.3% 18.5%

4226 15.2% 44.4% 11.7% 4.1% 24.6%

4424 6.7% 57.8% 15.6% 3.3% 16.7%

4469 25.9% 34.8% 12.7% 5.7% 20.9%

4626 12.0% 54.4% 3.2% 4.8% 25.6%

4699 24.7% 48.1% 11.7% 2.6% 13.0%

4761 23.5% 41.4% 8.6% 4.3% 22.2%

4866 10.9% 54.5% 7.9% 5.0% 21.8%

4885 19.1% 52.8% 10.1% 2.2% 15.7%

4909 18.0% 50.6% 10.1% 4.5% 16.9%

4969 27.9% 31.1% 1.6% 7.4% 32.0%

5164 41.4% 28.8% 6.3% 4.5% 18.9%

5212 16.2% 30.6% 8.7% 2.9% 41.6%

5228 14.7% 44.1% 7.4% 1.5% 32.4%

5231 26.4% 38.8% 10.7% 5.0% 19.0%

5261 19.4% 55.8% 2.4% 1.8% 20.6%

5273 33.0% 32.1% 8.5% . . 26.4%

5355 36.6% 36.1% 4.4% 6.6% 16.4%

5507 6.2% 62.3% 8.0% 1.2% 22.2%

5522 13.5% 54.6% 7.6% 2.7% 21.6%

5590 23.0% 40.5% 6.8% 4.1% 25.7%

5635 13.8% 62.5% 1.3% 1.3% 21.1%

5669 25.9% 36.2% 3.4% 5.2% 29.3%

5681 25.6% 38.1% 6.0% 3.0% 27.4%

5727 27.0% 33.3% 10.6% 5.0% 24.1%

5778 26.8% 37.8% 9.8% 3.7% 22.0%

5896 23.2% 41.1% 14.3% . . 21.4%

5971 24.8% 43.6% 6.8% 0.8% 24.1%

6071 19.1% 40.9% 7.8% 5.2% 27.0%

6188 21.7% 42.0% 7.0% 8.9% 20.4%

6208 23.0% 33.9% 4.4% 3.8% 35.0%

6241 20.4% 48.7% 8.6% 4.6% 17.8%

6305 23.9% 39.8% 8.8% 3.5% 23.9%

6329 16.5% 62.4% 4.6% 2.8% 13.8%

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions

MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued
84

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MEMPHIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Booker Period Total 20.8% 20.6% 30.5% 2.8% 25.3%

Gall Period Total 15.1% 21.4% 36.3% 4.0% 23.2%

Post-Report Period Total 14.9% 28.6% 33.6% 1.7% 21.2%

Booker Period Judges

4684 20.1% 21.3% 31.6% 2.3% 24.7%

4871 17.1% 17.1% 32.6% 3.9% 29.3%

6221 25.1% 23.5% 27.4% 2.2% 21.8%

Gall Period Judges

4021 15.3% 15.9% 41.2% 6.5% 21.2%

4684 20.1% 29.0% 30.5% 4.6% 22.9%

4871 17.1% 21.6% 39.8% 1.9% 20.5%

6221 25.1% 17.6% 35.6% 3.8% 27.0%

Post-Report Period Judges

4021 20.8% 25.2% 31.2% 2.4% 20.4%

4684 11.4% 29.4% 37.9% 1.8% 19.5%

5103 13.6% 28.5% 33.9% 1.2% 22.7%

5130 17.3% 24.9% 36.5% 1.0% 20.3%

6221 13.9% 34.0% 26.5% 2.1% 23.5%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MEMPHIS

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
85

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MIAMI-BASED FEDERAL 

JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Booker Period Total 15.7% 49.0% 5.0% 5.9% 24.3%

Gall Period Total 26.0% 35.7% 5.7% 6.9% 25.8%

Post-Report Period Total 25.1% 33.3% 7.4% 5.9% 28.2%

Booker Period Judges

4141 16.5% 48.9% 2.7% 3.2% 28.7%

4237 11.4% 54.4% 3.8% 1.3% 29.1%

4348 17.8% 37.8% 10.8% 6.5% 27.0%

4835 17.7% 55.8% 3.9% 6.6% 16.0%

4889 15.5% 49.7% 6.5% 6.5% 21.9%

5142 19.9% 32.6% 2.8% 10.6% 34.0%

5191 23.7% 40.5% 4.0% 2.9% 28.9%

5392 13.5% 53.4% 4.1% 6.1% 23.0%

5463 13.4% 54.5% 4.3% 5.9% 21.9%

5467 22.2% 40.0% 2.8% 7.2% 27.8%

6206 4.2% 60.5% 7.9% 6.8% 20.5%

6324 8.8% 59.3% 2.2% 8.8% 20.9%

6328 15.3% 54.5% 6.8% 4.5% 18.8%

Gall Period Judges

4141 24.4% 38.7% 6.5% 4.1% 26.3%

4237 17.4% 36.8% 6.0% 6.5% 33.3%

4348 17.8% 34.1% 6.5% 10.3% 31.3%

4835 21.9% 44.6% 7.2% 5.2% 21.1%

4889 23.5% 46.6% 3.0% 4.7% 22.1%

5142 37.5% 28.2% 6.0% 4.3% 23.9%

5191 33.5% 28.3% 4.7% 7.3% 26.2%

5392 27.5% 31.9% 7.7% 6.6% 26.4%

5463 37.1% 32.4% 6.3% 5.9% 18.4%

5467 21.3% 24.6% 4.5% 9.4% 40.2%

6206 18.8% 39.5% 5.9% 11.8% 24.0%

6328 27.6% 40.1% 4.6% 6.9% 20.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4141 39.2% 29.6% 2.4% 3.2% 25.6%

4237 16.7% 30.6% 8.1% 12.4% 32.3%

4348 28.8% 33.3% 6.4% 2.0% 29.6%

4635 21.9% 29.8% 8.4% 7.9% 31.9%

4835 24.8% 37.2% 5.4% 2.8% 29.7%

4889 20.9% 37.0% 6.1% 4.5% 31.6%

4894 28.5% 33.8% 8.2% 4.7% 24.7%

5191 24.2% 37.9% 10.6% 6.1% 21.2%

5463 27.1% 34.1% 5.3% 5.8% 27.8%

5467 21.5% 27.5% 8.8% 10.1% 32.1%

5887 32.8% 33.3% 7.0% 4.3% 22.7%

6185 13.5% 41.0% 8.5% 12.0% 25.0%

6206 16.7% 28.4% 10.2% 11.2% 33.5%

6308 32.4% 31.0% 9.5% 5.2% 21.9%

6328 27.7% 35.0% 10.0% 3.5% 23.8%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MIAMI

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
86

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MINNEAPOLIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Booker Period Total 11.2% 49.0% 10.7% 4.8% 24.3%

Gall Period Total 11.9% 44.3% 7.8% 8.8% 27.2%

Post-Report Period Total 14.1% 36.0% 12.4% 7.0% 30.4%

Booker Period Judges

4081 9.2% 41.8% 15.3% 4.1% 29.6%

4964 19.1% 43.6% 10.0% 2.7% 24.5%

5116 4.4% 55.6% 14.4% 5.6% 20.0%

5495 11.4% 53.3% 6.7% 4.8% 23.8%

5530 11.7% 51.4% 10.8% 4.5% 21.6%

6322 9.8% 48.9% 7.6% 7.6% 26.1%

Gall Period Judges

4081 6.3% 58.5% 7.7% 8.5% 19.0%

4452 9.8% 38.2% 8.9% 8.1% 35.0%

4964 19.5% 35.6% 6.8% 12.7% 25.4%

5116 9.2% 53.3% 9.2% 8.3% 20.0%

5495 15.8% 36.6% 5.5% 4.9% 37.2%

5530 10.9% 46.5% 8.9% 12.9% 20.8%

6322 10.7% 43.0% 9.1% 9.1% 28.1%

Post-Report Period Judges

4081 12.3% 40.1% 11.8% 5.3% 30.5%

4452 11.3% 37.3% 15.3% 6.2% 29.9%

4964 11.0% 21.3% 16.2% 11.8% 39.7%

5495 13.3% 37.5% 11.7% 10.2% 27.3%

5530 19.6% 39.9% 8.2% 5.1% 27.2%

6322 16.2% 37.1% 11.9% 5.7% 29.0%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

MINNEAPOLIS

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
87

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Booker Period Total 21.3% 29.8% 11.0% 2.8% 35.1%

Gall Period Total 17.9% 24.3% 16.5% 12.3% 29.1%

Post-Report Period Total 16.1% 27.5% 12.2% 17.1% 27.2%

Booker Period Judges

4063 29.4% 17.6% 13.2% 5.9% 33.8%

4523 19.6% 19.6% 19.6% . . 41.2%

4621 21.7% 27.5% 14.5% 2.9% 33.3%

4814 16.1% 37.5% 12.5% 5.4% 28.6%

5334 32.7% 25.5% 5.5% 3.6% 32.7%

5471 26.2% 21.3% 6.6% 1.6% 44.3%

5770 6.6% 53.9% 6.6% . . 32.9%

Gall Period Judges

4063 16.9% 24.3% 19.1% 13.2% 26.5%

4523 18.2% 39.4% 9.5% 8.8% 24.1%

4621 15.6% 20.8% 16.7% 19.8% 27.1%

4814 23.3% 21.8% 17.3% 12.0% 25.6%

5334 13.1% 21.3% 18.0% 13.1% 34.4%

5597 17.5% 13.2% 17.5% 12.3% 39.5%

5770 21.0% 27.4% 19.4% 4.8% 27.4%

Post-Report Period Judges

4063 17.0% 27.4% 11.3% 16.1% 28.3%

4523 8.2% 24.7% 14.7% 16.5% 35.9%

4621 16.4% 34.0% 9.8% 19.1% 20.7%

4814 17.5% 23.5% 11.0% 23.0% 25.0%

5334 16.1% 28.9% 10.6% 17.0% 27.5%

5597 21.4% 25.2% 15.8% 11.5% 26.1%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

OKLAHOMA CITY

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
88

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PHILADELPHIA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Booker Period Total 16.1% 22.8% 16.3% 8.1% 36.7%

Gall Period Total 15.3% 22.2% 16.5% 10.2% 35.8%

Post-Report Period Total 19.4% 22.2% 11.0% 9.2% 38.1%

Booker Period Judges

4022 17.2% 18.8% 20.3% 6.3% 37.5%

4651 24.0% 14.0% 10.0% 6.0% 46.0%

4886 5.5% 38.2% 14.5% 12.7% 29.1%

5160 23.5% 9.8% 23.5% 9.8% 33.3%

5444 18.9% 20.8% 15.1% 9.4% 35.8%

5451 17.6% 13.7% 21.6% 2.0% 45.1%

5583 7.3% 20.0% 14.5% 14.5% 43.6%

6275 10.0% 40.0% 20.0% . . 30.0%

6311 9.4% 28.3% 13.2% 9.4% 39.6%

6356 28.8% 25.0% 9.6% 9.6% 26.9%

Gall Period Judges

4022 20.0% 18.2% 20.0% 10.9% 30.9%

4324 8.6% 25.9% 15.5% 15.5% 34.5%

4570 11.9% 20.3% 16.9% 15.3% 35.6%

4651 22.6% 18.9% 13.2% 11.3% 34.0%

4788 6.9% 15.5% 24.1% 8.6% 44.8%

4854 9.0% 23.9% 16.4% 4.5% 46.3%

4886 16.9% 32.3% 7.7% 4.6% 38.5%

5051 9.8% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 41.0%

5160 18.9% 13.5% 17.6% 8.1% 41.9%

5433 16.4% 28.8% 16.4% 11.0% 27.4%

5583 20.9% 23.9% 17.9% 11.9% 25.4%

5956 9.7% 17.7% 27.4% 16.1% 29.0%

6275 16.1% 29.0% 22.6% 4.8% 27.4%

6311 5.7% 26.4% 17.0% 11.3% 39.6%

6356 19.4% 19.4% 9.7% 9.7% 41.9%

6367 28.0% 24.0% 8.0% 5.3% 34.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4022 27.3% 18.2% 7.6% 15.2% 31.8%

4324 21.2% 20.0% 12.9% 9.4% 36.5%

4570 30.2% 19.8% 7.3% 10.4% 32.3%

4623 21.2% 24.2% 4.5% 6.1% 43.9%

4641 14.6% 25.6% 11.0% 8.5% 40.2%

4651 14.3% 19.6% 14.3% 19.6% 32.1%

4788 11.8% 11.8% 12.9% 12.9% 50.6%

4854 16.0% 10.7% 9.3% 13.3% 50.7%

4886 5.7% 13.2% 11.3% 11.3% 58.5%

5042 20.3% 26.6% 12.5% 7.8% 32.8%

5051 16.1% 21.4% 17.9% 8.9% 35.7%

5287 18.4% 22.4% 14.5% 2.6% 42.1%

5433 21.5% 21.5% 12.7% 6.3% 38.0%

5583 25.3% 28.0% 10.7% 12.0% 24.0%

5956 17.4% 27.9% 9.3% 7.0% 38.4%

6275 13.3% 32.0% 14.7% 8.0% 32.0%

6356 21.7% 37.3% 7.2% 2.4% 31.3%

6367 28.6% 14.3% 10.7% 7.1% 39.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PHILADELPHIA

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
89

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PHOENIX-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Booker Period Total 3.6% 21.5% 14.1% 12.9% 47.9%

Gall Period Total 3.8% 21.2% 7.8% 30.1% 37.1%

Post-Report Period Total 4.5% 27.0% 9.6% 23.7% 35.2%

Booker Period Judges

4148 3.4% 23.3% 12.5% 13.6% 47.2%

4497 3.3% 16.3% 14.4% 12.0% 54.1%

4757 4.5% 15.8% 14.9% 13.4% 51.5%

4933 7.9% 18.9% 11.6% 10.0% 51.6%

5249 3.4% 23.9% 12.9% 14.0% 45.8%

5347 3.7% 20.2% 14.9% 8.5% 52.7%

5804 3.2% 24.7% 24.1% 14.6% 33.5%

5917 2.6% 28.8% 12.2% 17.9% 38.5%

6224 2.4% 15.9% 9.8% 8.5% 63.4%

6253 0.9% 25.7% 12.8% 14.7% 45.9%

Gall Period Judges

4148 3.7% 24.8% 6.4% 21.1% 44.0%

4156 4.1% 34.2% 5.2% 26.4% 30.1%

4497 4.7% 17.0% 7.5% 29.2% 41.5%

4757 8.7% 18.3% 8.3% 27.0% 37.8%

4933 3.7% 11.4% 8.2% 38.8% 37.9%

5249 2.8% 20.0% 8.8% 32.0% 36.4%

5347 3.9% 17.5% 10.1% 30.7% 37.7%

5804 2.5% 35.4% 7.7% 27.0% 27.4%

5917 3.5% 22.7% 4.6% 38.1% 31.2%

6224 1.3% 19.3% 8.7% 28.0% 42.7%

6253 3.1% 11.5% 9.2% 26.5% 49.6%

Post-Report Period Judges

4033 1.6% 37.3% 5.8% 27.0% 28.3%

4148 3.2% 10.6% 7.4% 64.9% 13.8%

4156 3.7% 22.9% 10.4% 22.1% 41.0%

4546 3.6% 27.4% 4.9% 24.7% 39.5%

4757 4.5% 29.0% 12.1% 22.7% 31.6%

5249 4.9% 21.1% 12.7% 26.1% 35.2%

5347 5.3% 24.5% 11.5% 20.7% 38.0%

5351 4.7% 24.5% 9.4% 26.9% 34.4%

5804 5.6% 34.1% 8.1% 17.6% 34.5%

5917 9.2% 29.5% 11.6% 17.9% 31.8%

6121 4.0% 33.8% 8.6% 20.2% 33.3%

6224 3.4% 13.7% 7.4% 22.9% 52.6%

6253 5.7% 21.7% 12.6% 27.0% 33.0%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PHOENIX

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
90

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PITTSBURGH-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Booker Period Total 16.9% 34.3% 19.9% 1.3% 27.7%

Gall Period Total 15.2% 33.8% 17.1% 1.8% 32.1%

Post-Report Period Total 15.5% 40.9% 9.9% 1.2% 32.5%

Booker Period Judges

4180 16.9% 35.6% 16.9% . . 30.5%

4334 15.9% 37.7% 21.7% . . 24.6%

4678 11.8% 21.6% 37.3% . . 29.4%

5136 12.8% 50.0% 14.1% 1.3% 21.8%

5386 19.5% 27.3% 16.9% 2.6% 33.8%

5572 17.2% 31.0% 20.7% 2.3% 28.7%

5671 23.5% 39.7% 22.1% 2.9% 11.8%

5682 14.5% 42.1% 10.5% 1.3% 31.6%

5975 18.8% 18.8% 25.0% . . 37.5%

Gall Period Judges

4334 14.3% 33.0% 23.1% . . 29.7%

4678 27.3% 26.1% 19.3% 2.3% 25.0%

4877 16.9% 27.3% 18.2% . . 37.7%

5136 16.4% 48.2% 9.1% . . 26.4%

5386 8.6% 25.9% 21.0% 8.6% 35.8%

5572 8.1% 34.9% 19.8% 2.3% 34.9%

5671 26.3% 19.7% 19.7% . . 34.2%

5682 14.1% 38.5% 10.3% 2.6% 34.6%

5975 8.2% 46.9% 15.3% . . 29.6%

6251 13.0% 29.0% 17.4% 2.9% 37.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4334 15.4% 39.2% 9.2% . . 36.2%

4877 18.2% 43.2% 6.1% 1.4% 31.1%

5085 14.4% 50.0% 9.3% . . 26.3%

5136 13.0% 47.4% 11.0% 1.9% 26.6%

5386 18.6% 31.9% 8.8% 4.4% 36.3%

5477 14.0% 43.0% 10.3% 0.9% 31.8%

5671 16.3% 32.6% 14.0% 1.2% 36.0%

5682 20.3% 33.2% 9.9% 1.0% 35.6%

5975 11.0% 33.0% 14.7% 1.8% 39.4%

6251 10.0% 55.0% 8.3% . . 26.7%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PITTSBURGH

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
91

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PORTLAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Booker Period Total 13.1% 25.6% 21.8% 7.0% 32.4%

Gall Period Total 10.1% 26.6% 16.9% 13.6% 32.7%

Post-Report Period Total 7.6% 26.1% 21.0% 10.5% 34.8%

Booker Period Judges

4068 17.6% 29.7% 20.3% 8.1% 24.3%

5274 14.7% 14.7% 19.6% 9.8% 41.2%

5445 11.3% 33.8% 21.8% 4.9% 28.2%

5687 10.8% 26.6% 19.4% 6.5% 36.7%

5973 14.0% 21.7% 27.1% 7.0% 30.2%

Gall Period Judges

4051 5.4% 18.5% 16.3% 15.2% 44.6%

4068 14.7% 13.3% 13.3% 20.0% 38.7%

5274 10.7% 20.7% 19.3% 8.0% 41.3%

5445 8.7% 34.3% 19.2% 9.3% 28.5%

5459 2.2% 52.9% 12.5% 17.6% 14.7%

5687 11.2% 22.9% 16.6% 15.6% 33.7%

5973 16.0% 18.7% 18.2% 13.4% 33.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4051 8.7% 25.2% 11.5% 18.2% 36.4%

4117 8.6% 21.4% 26.7% 6.4% 36.9%

4536 10.5% 24.3% 21.5% 7.2% 36.5%

4988 6.4% 30.4% 20.1% 4.4% 38.7%

5274 6.8% 28.8% 25.4% 4.2% 34.7%

5445 8.2% 31.4% 27.3% 0.3% 32.8%

5459 2.3% 34.9% 19.8% 24.4% 18.6%

5687 11.8% 22.4% 19.7% 3.9% 42.1%

5973 6.9% 27.1% 26.1% . . 39.9%

6162 . . . . 2.6% 83.1% 14.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

PORTLAND

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
92

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAINT LOUIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Booker Period Total 12.8% 42.2% 23.5% 4.0% 17.6%

Gall Period Total 13.6% 29.3% 21.8% 1.8% 33.6%

Post-Report Period Total 19.0% 24.5% 27.4% 1.2% 27.8%

Booker Period Judges

4078 14.7% 44.8% 22.8% 2.2% 15.5%

4751 12.1% 40.2% 21.5% 4.7% 21.5%

4806 14.7% 44.1% 23.2% 3.3% 14.7%

5225 17.9% 34.6% 24.1% 5.6% 17.9%

5549 13.7% 41.6% 25.7% 3.1% 15.9%

5759 12.6% 44.4% 21.3% 2.9% 18.8%

5965 6.2% 45.0% 24.4% 6.2% 18.2%

6043 10.2% 39.8% 25.9% 4.6% 19.4%

Gall Period Judges

4078 14.4% 25.5% 23.6% 3.0% 33.6%

4751 11.9% 25.2% 22.4% 1.7% 38.8%

4806 14.3% 34.6% 18.0% 0.5% 32.7%

5225 14.5% 29.0% 20.2% 1.5% 34.7%

5549 13.0% 28.2% 21.4% 0.4% 37.0%

5759 12.1% 34.7% 19.1% 1.3% 32.8%

5965 15.8% 29.1% 23.1% 1.6% 30.4%

6043 11.5% 27.9% 30.3% 6.6% 23.8%

Post-Report Period Judges

4078 24.1% 25.8% 24.9% 0.9% 24.4%

4149 13.5% 30.4% 27.6% 1.4% 27.0%

4751 31.9% 16.3% 13.5% 0.7% 37.6%

5225 16.0% 19.8% 30.2% 0.9% 33.0%

5549 16.3% 22.3% 19.3% 1.2% 41.0%

5759 19.5% 27.6% 25.6% 1.7% 25.6%

5824 26.2% 16.1% 37.6% 2.0% 18.1%

5926 17.4% 27.3% 34.5% 0.3% 20.5%

5965 15.9% 24.6% 27.5% 1.9% 30.1%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAINT LOUIS

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
93

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SALT LAKE CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF UTAH

Booker Period Total 6.6% 25.9% 24.7% 20.2% 22.6%

Gall Period Total 7.6% 28.0% 25.7% 7.9% 30.8%

Post-Report Period Total 9.0% 30.3% 25.6% 5.4% 29.7%

Booker Period Judges

4109 4.9% 29.2% 25.1% 18.4% 22.5%

4242 12.9% 12.9% 22.4% 34.1% 17.6%

4550 9.4% 33.6% 21.7% 16.8% 18.4%

4775 7.5% 19.4% 25.4% 26.9% 20.9%

4781 5.9% 23.5% 23.5% 17.6% 29.4%

4983 4.0% 29.6% 26.1% 21.3% 19.0%

6165 5.5% 24.7% 24.0% 17.5% 28.4%

6343 7.3% 19.5% 27.1% 21.4% 24.8%

Gall Period Judges

4109 8.0% 20.5% 24.0% 9.1% 38.4%

4550 7.5% 28.9% 27.5% 7.5% 28.6%

4775 16.0% 22.2% 22.2% 16.0% 23.5%

4983 5.5% 32.4% 30.5% 5.9% 25.8%

5615 6.6% 24.5% 24.1% 8.0% 36.8%

6343 7.4% 33.3% 23.8% 6.8% 28.6%

Post-Report Period Judges

4109 9.4% 26.2% 20.8% 4.7% 38.9%

4550 9.9% 22.1% 35.1% 5.3% 27.5%

4775 17.6% 24.7% 29.4% 4.7% 23.5%

4870 7.8% 33.3% 20.8% 6.3% 31.8%

4983 14.3% 23.6% 25.7% 4.3% 32.1%

5615 7.1% 23.0% 29.4% 5.6% 34.9%

6074 9.5% 30.0% 21.6% 8.1% 30.7%

6130 1.4% 35.6% 34.2% 1.4% 27.4%

6343 6.7% 47.5% 20.2% 4.0% 21.5%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SALT LAKE CITY

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
94

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN ANTONIO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Booker Period Total 6.9% 38.2% 19.5% 12.0% 23.3%

Gall Period Total 5.8% 28.1% 14.0% 32.4% 19.7%

Post-Report Period Total 5.6% 31.9% 11.0% 34.3% 17.2%

Booker Period Judges

5364 5.0% 41.2% 21.1% 10.1% 22.6%

5531 9.1% 35.7% 18.3% 13.5% 23.5%

5742 6.4% 38.1% 19.5% 12.3% 23.7%

Gall Period Judges

5364 4.0% 30.1% 15.7% 27.0% 23.2%

5531 5.5% 23.8% 12.8% 40.5% 17.4%

5742 8.0% 31.6% 13.8% 27.4% 19.2%

Post-Report Period Judges

5364 7.2% 32.9% 11.4% 29.5% 18.9%

5405 4.7% 26.6% 9.1% 41.1% 18.5%

5531 3.9% 33.9% 11.3% 35.2% 15.7%

5742 6.1% 31.0% 11.0% 34.9% 17.0%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN ANTONIO

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
95

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN DIEGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Booker Period Total 1.3% 21.0% 0.4% 21.7% 55.6%

Gall Period Total 2.3% 19.3% 2.3% 40.8% 35.4%

Post-Report Period Total 4.0% 36.9% 3.3% 23.3% 32.4%

Booker Period Judges

4062 1.4% 36.2% 0.5% 24.2% 37.7%

4491 0.4% 23.1% . . 21.4% 55.1%

4572 2.0% 22.0% 0.5% 35.5% 40.0%

4810 1.3% 25.3% 0.9% 19.7% 52.8%

5404 2.2% 24.2% 1.1% 30.8% 41.8%

5455 3.2% 17.9% . . 24.2% 54.7%

5474 0.8% 33.1% 0.8% 13.9% 51.5%

5539 1.4% 27.1% 1.0% 25.7% 44.8%

6373 1.3% 3.5% . . 19.2% 76.0%

Gall Period Judges

4062 4.3% 19.0% 3.0% 39.2% 34.5%

4491 1.8% 27.4% 1.1% 34.7% 35.0%

4559 1.5% 12.8% 2.9% 45.5% 37.3%

4572 3.2% 21.1% 3.2% 42.6% 29.9%

4810 1.2% 23.3% 1.7% 35.1% 38.6%

5059 1.2% 19.8% 2.9% 37.8% 38.2%

5474 3.4% 26.8% 6.3% 24.4% 39.0%

5539 2.1% 24.0% 1.8% 37.2% 34.9%

5709 4.8% 17.2% 2.4% 36.3% 39.3%

5714 1.9% 20.4% 0.9% 37.0% 39.8%

5751 4.0% 18.7% 2.5% 36.0% 38.8%

5901 1.9% 19.5% 4.2% 39.5% 34.9%

6222 1.9% 21.4% 2.6% 39.8% 34.2%

6373 1.7% . . . . 76.7% 21.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4012 6.7% 32.4% 3.2% 20.0% 37.8%

4062 1.8% 53.2% . . 9.2% 35.8%

4491 1.8% 54.1% 2.4% 23.7% 17.9%

4559 7.4% 25.6% 4.8% 23.7% 38.5%

4572 3.5% 41.0% 5.5% 18.9% 31.1%

4810 2.8% 42.5% 3.3% 20.8% 30.6%

5059 2.0% 26.4% 3.0% 39.6% 29.1%

5269 4.3% 42.9% 2.5% 18.6% 31.7%

5539 10.3% 32.2% 1.7% 23.0% 32.8%

5709 9.1% 23.0% 4.8% 21.2% 41.8%

5714 3.1% 45.2% 2.0% 23.4% 26.4%

5751 9.1% 36.4% 4.5% 7.3% 42.7%

5901 2.5% 33.1% 5.0% 21.1% 38.3%

6086 4.8% 16.2% 7.6% 17.1% 54.3%

6222 2.6% 36.5% 2.6% 20.6% 37.6%

6373 . . . . . . 82.3% 17.7%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN DIEGO

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
96

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN FRANCISCO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Booker Period Total 6.5% 26.8% 17.7% 10.7% 38.3%

Gall Period Total 13.8% 24.9% 12.2% 22.0% 27.2%

Post-Report Period Total 12.7% 27.2% 18.2% 8.7% 33.2%

Booker Period Judges

4194 3.3% 28.3% 23.3% 10.0% 35.0%

4644 6.2% 24.6% 21.5% 16.9% 30.8%

4698 6.7% 25.0% 5.0% 8.3% 55.0%

4962 7.8% 32.5% 14.3% 9.1% 36.4%

5483 13.7% 15.7% 21.6% 7.8% 41.2%

5786 2.8% 31.0% 21.1% 11.3% 33.8%

Gall Period Judges

4040 14.3% 25.5% 14.3% 12.2% 33.7%

4194 11.1% 21.2% 12.1% 25.3% 30.3%

4644 14.5% 19.7% 12.0% 23.1% 30.8%

4962 10.9% 37.0% 13.8% 21.7% 16.7%

5483 18.3% 18.3% 8.7% 27.0% 27.8%

Post-Report Period Judges

4040 13.8% 36.2% 12.1% 12.1% 25.9%

4418 13.3% 36.1% 20.5% 3.6% 26.5%

4574 14.8% 27.8% 16.5% 13.0% 27.8%

4644 15.3% 26.8% 19.7% 6.4% 31.8%

4962 12.7% 24.5% 18.9% 6.1% 37.7%

5483 7.4% 27.3% 13.2% 15.7% 36.4%

5554 14.9% 29.7% 25.7% 5.4% 24.3%

5847 10.1% 19.3% 18.3% 9.2% 43.1%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN FRANCISCO

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
97

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN JUAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Booker Period Total 4.1% 53.2% 7.6% 11.8% 23.3%

Gall Period Total 3.5% 27.0% 6.4% 3.3% 59.7%

Post-Report Period Total 2.6% 23.0% 24.5% 2.3% 47.6%

Booker Period Judges

4017 1.4% 64.2% 4.7% 13.5% 16.2%

4136 1.4% 65.8% 2.7% 9.6% 20.5%

4203 2.2% 47.8% 9.7% 17.2% 23.1%

4262 9.5% 53.2% 9.5% 7.3% 20.5%

4656 2.3% 45.7% 9.3% 15.5% 27.1%

5229 2.6% 52.3% 5.2% 7.7% 32.3%

6078 6.3% 42.2% 10.9% 17.2% 23.4%

Gall Period Judges

4017 2.9% 33.6% 0.7% 1.5% 61.3%

4203 2.2% 33.8% 7.4% 9.6% 47.1%

4262 0.8% 29.2% 5.3% 1.1% 63.6%

4656 1.4% 27.1% 12.5% 5.6% 53.5%

5229 2.3% 24.7% 8.8% 3.3% 60.9%

5341 6.0% 25.6% 10.1% 3.6% 54.8%

6078 5.9% 17.0% 3.0% 3.0% 71.2%

6144 6.3% 32.8% 5.3% 2.1% 53.4%

Post-Report Period Judges

4017 4.2% 32.9% 19.2% 2.8% 40.8%

4203 2.5% 19.9% 24.5% 2.1% 51.0%

4262 2.3% 26.1% 19.5% 1.9% 50.3%

4656 1.3% 24.6% 25.5% 2.2% 46.4%

4778 2.4% 10.4% 43.2% 3.2% 40.8%

5229 2.6% 19.2% 23.0% 1.5% 53.8%

5341 3.3% 24.9% 29.1% 1.8% 40.8%

6078 2.7% 20.9% 21.1% 3.0% 52.2%

6144 3.2% 24.3% 26.7% 3.0% 42.8%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SAN JUAN

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
98

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SEATTLE-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Booker Period Total 13.5% 41.2% 9.0% 11.9% 24.3%

Gall Period Total 13.5% 39.7% 10.8% 14.3% 21.8%

Post-Report Period Total 13.3% 39.0% 15.8% 6.6% 25.3%

Booker Period Judges

4185 13.3% 39.0% 5.7% 17.1% 24.8%

5011 13.5% 33.3% 6.3% 20.6% 26.2%

5018 9.9% 38.9% 17.3% 7.4% 26.5%

5515 12.1% 39.6% 6.6% 6.0% 35.7%

5891 19.2% 40.4% 8.8% 12.4% 19.2%

6150 12.3% 43.9% 10.7% 8.0% 25.1%

6193 13.7% 51.6% 5.9% 17.0% 11.8%

Gall Period Judges

4150 15.5% 29.6% 7.7% 16.9% 30.3%

4185 18.0% 36.1% 26.2% 1.6% 18.0%

5011 10.5% 42.4% 9.3% 12.8% 25.0%

5515 15.0% 38.9% 7.8% 19.8% 18.6%

5891 13.1% 40.4% 11.6% 14.1% 20.7%

6150 12.0% 44.8% 10.9% 12.0% 20.3%

6193 13.9% 40.6% 10.9% 15.3% 19.3%

Post-Report Period Judges

4150 11.8% 37.7% 12.7% 5.7% 32.0%

4185 20.4% 23.9% 25.7% 8.8% 21.2%

5011 15.3% 34.4% 17.7% 7.9% 24.7%

5515 11.5% 42.7% 13.8% 5.5% 26.5%

5891 11.2% 50.8% 15.2% 4.1% 18.8%

6150 9.5% 43.6% 15.3% 6.2% 25.5%

6193 19.9% 29.5% 15.7% 9.6% 25.3%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

SEATTLE

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER
99

Judge's Caseload by Guideline

TAMPA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Booker Period Total 7.6% 60.1% 7.2% 10.2% 14.9%

Gall Period Total 10.7% 47.9% 9.4% 12.9% 19.0%

Post-Report Period Total 14.5% 49.8% 11.5% 7.8% 16.4%

Booker Period Judges

4303 5.9% 60.6% 8.0% 10.6% 14.9%

4720 14.1% 51.3% 7.0% 9.5% 18.1%

5025 4.1% 68.5% 4.1% 9.5% 14.0%

5236 11.0% 61.0% 3.8% 10.4% 13.7%

5439 8.1% 59.3% 3.7% 12.6% 16.3%

6115 2.9% 63.4% 11.4% 10.9% 11.4%

6334 7.1% 55.5% 12.6% 8.8% 15.9%

Gall Period Judges

4303 9.5% 44.1% 14.7% 12.3% 19.4%

4720 17.6% 42.0% 10.8% 14.2% 15.3%

5025 9.3% 48.5% 8.9% 11.8% 21.5%

5171 21.2% 31.8% 1.5% 33.3% 12.1%

5236 8.2% 46.2% 11.1% 13.9% 20.7%

5439 12.4% 55.9% 6.2% 9.6% 15.8%

5798 19.2% 21.9% 13.7% 11.0% 34.2%

6115 6.7% 56.0% 8.1% 10.0% 19.1%

6334 6.7% 57.1% 7.1% 12.4% 16.7%

Post-Report Period Judges

4303 11.0% 54.5% 11.0% 8.9% 14.7%

4720 18.6% 52.3% 9.8% 6.4% 12.9%

5025 14.2% 60.1% 7.9% 4.7% 13.0%

5171 17.0% 43.9% 12.5% 4.8% 21.8%

5236 11.6% 49.2% 17.4% 6.6% 15.1%

5311 1.5% 14.9% 3.0% 73.1% 7.5%

5439 19.2% 48.2% 12.0% 2.9% 17.8%

5798 15.0% 43.0% 10.6% 7.2% 24.2%

6115 14.6% 46.6% 13.0% 9.7% 16.2%

6334 11.8% 56.1% 11.8% 4.5% 15.9%

Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline

TAMPA

USSG §2B1.1 USSG §2D1.1 USSG §2K2.1 USSG §2L1.2 OTHER

APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions
100 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

There were certain cities 

where judges in the 

city did not have similar 

caseload compositions or 

where a city’s caseload 

composition changed 

significantly from one 

period to the next.
101

As discussed earlier, the Commission chose 

to measure differences in judges’ sentencing practices 

by comparing their average percent differences 

from the guideline minimums in their cases rather 

than comparing their average sentence lengths. As 

explained, the extent of differences among judges 

regarding sentence length is much more sensitive to 

variations in caseload composition than the extent of 

differences in average percent difference. Appendix C 

shows that, for a majority of the 30 cities, most judges’ 

caseload compositions in each city were generally 

similar compared to the other judges in their same city. 

Appendix C also shows that most cities had generally 

similar overall caseload compositions across the periods. 

There were certain cities, however, where most judges 

in the city did not have similar caseload compositions 

(e.g., Chicago), or where a city’s caseload composition 

changed significantly from one period to the next (e.g., 

Houston, from the Booker to Gall Periods). 

Weighting Analyses

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D: Weighting Analyses

In order to test the sensitivity of differences 

in caseload composition on judges’ average percent 

differences—both among a city’s judges during a 

given time period and also across time (in terms of a 

city’s overall caseload)—the Commission conducted 

weighting analyses.58

Differences in Caseload Among a 

City’s Judges in a Given Time Period

The first weighting test assigned all judges in a 

city in a given time period the same weighted caseload 

composition by using the city’s overall caseload 

composition for each judge. The analysis then applied 

each judge’s actual average percent differences for each 

of the four primary guidelines (§§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 2K2.1 

and 2L1.2) and for all other guidelines (combined into a 

fifth category) to the judges’ weighted caseloads. Each 

judge’s overall average percent difference based on his 
102

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

or her weighted caseload composition was substituted 

for that judge’s overall average percent difference 

based on his or her actual caseload composition. Total 

spreads and standard deviations based on the judges’ 

weighted average percent differences for each city in 

each period were calculated and then compared to the 

the actual total spreads and standard deviations for 

each of the three time periods.

An example of this weighting analysis is seen 

in the actual and weighted total spreads and standard 

deviations for Chicago during the Post-Report Period. 

Chicago was a city with judges whose caseload 

compositions during that period were not generally 

equivalent, as shown in Appendix C (p. 71). The 

Commission’s weighting analysis showed that those 

differences did not substantially contribute to the total 

spread and standard deviation in Chicago in that period. 

The actual total spread and standard deviation were 

49.5 and 10.6, while the weighted total spread and 

standard deviation were 47.4 and 10.6.

The Commission conducted this same 

weighting analysis for all 30 cities in all three periods. 

As shown in Figure 11 above, the actual and the 

weighted average total spreads for those 30 cities and 

the actual and weighted average standard deviations 

for the 27 cities with at least five judges in each period 

(the minimum number of judges required for a standard 

deviation analysis) were very similar.

This weighting analysis demonstrates that any 

differences in caseload composition among judges in 

the 30 cities during all three periods had very little effect 

on the two key measures of differences in sentencing 

practices.

Differences in Caseload Over Time 

Periods in a City

The Commission used a similar weighting 

analysis to determine whether changes in the total 

spread and standard deviation were significantly 

affected by changes in caseload composition across the 

three periods in some of the 30 cities.

This evident weighting test carried forward 

each judge’s respective caseload composition from a 

prior period to the subsequent period in a particular 

city (e.g., each judge’s caseload composition in the 

Booker Period was carried forward to the Gall Period). 

Each judge’s actual average percent differences for the 

four primary guidelines (§§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 2K2.1 and 

2L1.2) and for all other guidelines (combined into a 

fifth category) from the subsequent period were then 

applied to that judge’s caseload composition imported 

from the prior period. The judges’ overall average 

percent differences for their weighted caseloads were 

calculated, and the city’s weighted total spread and 

weighted standard deviation for the subsequent period 

Figure 11. Weighted Analysis for All 30 Cities Combined

Booker Period Gall Period Post-Report Period

Actual Spread 18.2 23.7 27.6

Weighted Spread 18.0 23.1 27.7

Actual Standard Deviation 5.8 7.7 8.3

Weighted Standard Deviation 5.8 7.5 8.4
103

APPENDIX D: Weighting Analyses

were then determined using the weighted average 

percent differences for each judge.59

An example of this weighting analysis is seen 

in the actual and weighted total spreads and standard 

deviations for Houston in the Booker Period and the 

Gall Period. As shown in Appendix C (p. 78), among 

the 30 cities, Houston had one of the most notable 

changes in caseload composition from the Booker

Period to the Gall Period. This change was the result 

of a prosecutorial charging policy that substantially 

increased the percentage of illegal reentry prosecutions, 

which on average have one of the highest withinrange rates of all major guideline types.60 Despite the 

substantial changes in caseload composition from one 

period to the next,61 the actual and weighted total 

spreads and standard deviations in the Gall Period both 

showed noticeable increases from the Booker Period. 

The total spread and standard deviation in the Booker

Period were 23.3 and 7.9. The actual total spread and 

standard deviation in the Gall Period were 36.5 and 

13.2, compared to weighted total spreads of 28.4 and 

10.5. 

The Commission conducted this weighting 

analysis for all 30 cities for both period changes 

(Booker to Gall, and Gall to Post-Report). As shown in 

Figure 12 above, when comparing the changes from 

the Booker Period to the Gall Period, the average actual 

total spread for all 30 cities in the subsequent period 

was very similar to the average weighted total spread 

for all 30 cities in the subsequent period. Similarly, 

the average actual standard deviation for the 27 cities 

with at least five judges in each period (for which the 

standard deviations are reported) was very similar to 

the average weighted standard deviation.

As shown in Figure 13 below, regarding the 

next period change—from the Gall Period to the PostReport Period—the average actual and weighted total 

spreads and standard deviations also were very similar.

Therefore, any differences in caseload composition 

from one period to the next in the 30 cities had very 

little effect on the two measures of differences in 

sentencing practices.

Figure 13. Gall to Post-Report Period Comparison for All 30 Cities Combined

Gall Period

(Actual)

Post-Report Period

(Actual)

Post-Report Period

(Weighted)

Total Spread 20.9 25.3 25.8

Standard Deviation 7.1 8.5 8.6

Figure 12. Booker to Gall Period Comparison for All 30 Cities Combined

Booker Period

(Actual)

Gall Period

(Actual)

Gall Period

(Weighted)

Total Spread 17.9 21.7 22.0

Standard Deviation 6.2 7.6 7.8
104 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Two important 

concepts in statistics—

outliers and standard 

deviation—are relevant 

to the Commission’s 

30-city study. 
105

This appendix discusses two important 

concepts in statistics—outliers and standard deviation—

that are relevant to the Commission’s 30-city study. 

Statistical Outliers

When data is analyzed, a researcher should 

identify whether any point in the dataset is a statistical 

outlier—an “[o]bservation [in the dataset] that is far 

removed from the bulk of the data.”62 Outliers “may 

indicate faulty measurements and they may exert undue 

influence on summary statistics, such as the mean ....”63

Although the Commission has no concerns that any 

datapoints in the 30-city dataset are products of faulty 

measurements of any judge’s sentencing practices, the 

Commission nonetheless has identified judges who 

qualify as outliers using the most common test for 

such identification—the 1.5 x Interquartile Range (IQR) 

test.64 

Statistical Outliers and 

Standard Deviation Analysis

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation

Using that test, the Commission identified 39 

statistical outliers out of a total 909 different judicial 

sentencing practices in the 30 cities over the three 

periods.65 During the Booker Period, there were 11 

outliers; during the Gall Period, there were ten outliers; 

and during the Post-Report period, there were 18 

outliers.66 Tampa was the only city to have more than 

one outlier judge during multiple periods (Gall and PostReport). 

In order to show the effect of those outlier 

judges on both the total spread and standard deviation 

measures, the Commission has re-calculated those 

two measures excluding the outlier judges. The 

results—both with and without the outlier judges in the 

analysis—are set forth below, using a modification of the 

graphical presentation discussed earlier in this report. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 
106

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

the outliers. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graph. For instance, for Chicago the 

two outlier judges—one in the Booker Period and one 

in the Post-Report Period—are identified either above 

or below red lines superimposed on the graphs to the 

right.

Graphical representations of the cities with at 

least one outlier judge in at least one period are set 

forth below. Note that, when removal of an outlier 

judge resulted in a city having less than five judges 

in one or more of the three periods, the standard 

deviation for that city is not reported. As discussed 

below, reporting the standard deviation for cities with 

less than five judges in any period is not a meaningful 

measure of dispersion. Only the total spread will be 

reported for those cities with less than five judges in a 

period after excluding outliers. 

The Commission has identified the statistical 

outliers in order to allow the reader to compare the 

graphical presentations of sentencing differences 

among judges for each city that has outlier judges—

with and without the outlier judges. Nevertheless, it 

must be remembered that outlier judges imposed real 

sentences on real defendants and their sentencing 

practices contributed to the extent of differences in 

sentencing practices among judges in their cities. The 

Commission’s exclusion of outlier judges from the 

alternative analyses in this appendix is not intended to 

suggest otherwise.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.1%

CHI

Booker

Judges: 18 (17)

Cases: 1,341 (1,270)

Spread: 31.6 (22.0)

Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3) 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.8%

CHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-28.1%

CHI

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 22

Cases: 2,033

Spread: 42.7

Standard Deviation: 11.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 24 (23)

Cases: 2,951 (2,779)

Spread: 49.5 (32.9)

Standard Deviation: 10.6 (8.2)

Figure 14. Chicago-Based Outlier Federal Judges
107

Standard Deviation

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

the absolute percentage difference between the 

two judges furthest away the city average, positively 

and negatively—the Commission also has reported 

the standard deviation for the 27 cities with at least 

five judges in all three periods. Standard deviation 

is the primary measure of dispersion or variability of 

datapoints compared to the mean67—in the case of the 

30 cities dataset, the dispersion of the judges’ average 

percent differences from the guideline minimums in 

relation to the city’s average percent difference. The 

standard deviation is thus a valid measure of the extent 

of sentencing differences among all the judges in a city 

in a given time period. The standard deviation “can 

be appropriately understood as the typical distance of 

a randomly selected [datapoint] from the mean of the 

distribution.”68

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation

The standard deviation for each time period 

in each city with at least five judges69 was calculated 

as follows. First, the variance—the statistical term, not 

the term referring to sentences outside of the guideline 

range after Booker—was calculated by summing the 

squared deviation from the mean for each judge (i.e., 

the squared difference between each judge’s average 

percent difference and the city’s average percent 

difference). The total sum was divided by the number 

of judges in the city minus one, which yielded the 

statistical variance. The standard deviation was then 

calculated by taking the square root of that variance.70
108

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.8%

ATL

Booker

OUTLIERS

ATLANTA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Atlanta, there were two statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

Judges: 12

Cases: 995

Spread: 19.6

Standard Deviation: 5.5

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-8.8%

ATL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.5%

ATL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 14 (12)

Cases: 1,504 (1,382)

Spread: 31.8 (12.2)

Standard Deviation: 7.2 (3.7)

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 15

Cases: 2,143

Spread: 26.9

Standard Deviation: 9.6
109

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.1%

CHI

Booker

OUTLIERS

CHICAGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Judges: 18 (17)

Cases: 1,341 (1,270)

Spread: 31.6 (22.0)

Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3) 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.8%

CHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-28.1%

CHI

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 22

Cases: 2,033

Spread: 42.7

Standard Deviation: 11.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 24 (23)

Cases: 2,951 (2,779)

Spread: 49.5 (32.9)

Standard Deviation: 10.6 (8.2)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Chicago, there were two statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
110

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.8%

CLEV

Booker

OUTLIERS

CLEVELAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Judges: 9 (8)

Cases: 924 (840)

Spread: 22.7 (12.6)

Standard Deviation: 6.6 (4.7) 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.0%

CLEV

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-12.2%

CLEV

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 744

Spread: 16.6

Standard Deviation: 5.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,240

Spread: 19.9

Standard Deviation: 7.5 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Cleveland, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
111

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

10.4%

COL

Booker

OUTLIERS

COLUMBUS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Judges: 5 (4)

Cases: 282 (222)

Spread: 15.2 (6.0)

Standard Deviation: 6.0

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-19.4%

COL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-24.6%

COL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 463

Spread: 12.4

Standard Deviation: 5.0 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 927

Spread: 8.7

Standard Deviation: 3.1

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on 

the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that 

measure excluding outlier judges. 

Because Columbus has less than five judges in at least 

one period after excluding outliers, the Commission 

has not reported the standard deviation after excluding 

outliers for this city.

In Columbus, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread after excluding the outliers is reported 

in parentheses following the total spread before 

excluding the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
112

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

1.7%

DAL

Booker

OUTLIERS

DALLAS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Judges: 8 (7)

Cases: 660 (566)

Spread: 22.0 (10.1)

Standard Deviation: 6.6 (4.0)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-3.0%

DAL

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-2.1%

DAL

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7 (6)

Cases: 904 (773)

Spread: 33.0 (15.2)

Standard Deviation: 10.9 (6.0)

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 7 (6)

Cases: 2,507 (2,146)

Spread: 40.3 (19.0)

Standard Deviation: 12.5 (7.1)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Dallas, there were three statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
113

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.6%

DET

Booker

OUTLIERS

DETROIT-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Judges: 11

Cases: 680

Spread: 34.4

Standard Deviation: 9.5

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-21.5%

DET

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-23.3%

DET

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 12

Cases: 1,011

Spread: 34.1

Standard Deviation: 10.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 18 (15)

Cases: 2,210 (1,727)

Spread: 47.7 (21.2)

Standard Deviation: 11.1 (6.2)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Detroit, there were three statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
114

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.2%

LA

Booker

OUTLIERS

LOS ANGELES-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judges: 15 (13)

Cases: 1,273 (1,090)

Spread: 29.1 (17.6)

Standard Deviation: 7.6 (5.1)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.2%

LA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-26.7%

LA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 18

Cases: 2,407

Spread: 29.3

Standard Deviation: 8.0

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 20

Cases: 3,111

Spread: 42.9 

Standard Deviation: 11.8

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Los Angeles, there were two statistical outliers over 

the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or 

below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
115

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.0%

MAN

Booker

OUTLIERS

MANHATTAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Judges: 32 (31)

Cases: 2,899 (2,845)

Spread: 44.8 (36.1)

Standard Deviation: 9.2 (7.9)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-25.5%

MAN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-36.3%

MAN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 31

Cases: 3,435

Spread: 34.5

Standard Deviation: 8.7 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 38 

Cases: 4,863

Spread: 59.1

Standard Deviation: 12.9 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Manhattan, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
116

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-5.8%

MEM

Booker

OUTLIERS

MEMPHIS-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Judges: 3

Cases: 534

Spread: 14.0

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.8%

MEM

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.4%

MEM

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 4

Cases: 980

Spread: 17.4

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 5 (4)

Cases: 1,400 (1,162)

Spread: 18.6 (6.8)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on 

the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that 

measure excluding outlier judges. 

Because Memphis has less than five judges in at least 

one period after excluding outliers, the Commission 

has not reported the standard deviation after excluding 

outliers for this city.

In Memphis, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread after excluding the outliers is reported 

in parentheses following the total spread before 

excluding the outliers.
117

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.3%

MIA

Booker

OUTLIERS

MIAMI-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Judges: 13 (12)

Cases: 2,074 (1,983)

Spread: 16.0 (7.8)

Standard Deviation: 4.1 (2.6)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.9%

MIA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.0%

MIA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 12

Cases: 2,859

Spread: 17.1

Standard Deviation: 5.2

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 15

Cases: 4,534

Spread: 29.9

Standard Deviation: 9.0 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Miami, there was one statistical outlier over the three 

periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red 

line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
118

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

OUTLIERS

MINNEAPOLIS-BASED

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on 

the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that 

measure excluding outlier judges. 

In Minneapolis, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.9%

MINN

Booker

Judges: 6

Cases: 606

Spread: 13.7

Standard Deviation: 5.1 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.6%

MINN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-18.7%

MINN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 908

Spread: 20.5

Standard Deviation: 6.9 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6 (5)

Cases: 996 (786)

Spread: 15.0 (6.6)

Standard Deviation: 5.3 (3.2)
119

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-0.7%

OKC

Booker

OUTLIERS

OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Judges: 7 (6)

Cases: 436 (360)

Spread: 32.1 (14.8)

Standard Deviation: 10.2 (5.8)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.6%

OKC

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-19.3%

OKC

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 800

Spread: 14.8

Standard Deviation: 5.2 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,369

Spread: 6.9

Standard Deviation: 2.7 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Oklahoma City, there was one statistical outlier over 

the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or 

below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
120

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-11.9%

PHI

Booker

OUTLIERS

PHILADELPHIA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Judges: 10 (9)

Cases: 534 (479)

Spread: 33.8 (15.8)

Standard Deviation: 9.6 (5.2)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-14.6%

PHI

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

18.4%

PHI

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 16 (15)

Cases: 1,004 (937)

Spread: 53.7 (28.3)

Standard Deviation: 13.5 (9.6) 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 18 (17)

Cases: 1,314 (1,239)

Spread: 63.8 (33.8)

Standard Deviation: 13.6 (9.6) 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Philadelphia, there were three statistical outliers 

over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or 

below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
121

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-3.7%

PHX

Booker

OUTLIERS

PHOENIX-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Judges: 10 (9)

Cases: 1,843 (1,579)

Spread: 8.7 (5.8)

Standard Deviation: 2.8 (1.9)

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-7.4%

PHX

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-10.1%

PHX

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 11 (9)

Cases: 2,330 (1,974)

Spread: 25.7 (16.7)

Standard Deviation: 7.1 (4.5) 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 13 (12)

Cases: 3,742 (3,600)

Spread: 27.5 (21.9)

Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Phoenix, there were four statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
122

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.1%

PITT

Booker

OUTLIERS

PITTSBURGH-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Judges: 9

Cases: 629

Spread: 19.7

Standard Deviation: 5.9 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-13.0%

PITT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-16.9%

PITT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 10 (9)

Cases: 854 (768)

Spread: 32.5 (12.2)

Standard Deviation: 9.4 (4.0) 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10

Cases: 1,287

Spread: 19.8

Standard Deviation: 6.9 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Pittsburgh, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
123

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-11.2%

PORT

Booker

OUTLIERS

PORTLAND-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Judges: 5

Cases: 586

Spread: 8.3

Standard Deviation: 3.3 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-21.6%

PORT

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-29.2%

PORT

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,017

Spread: 14.7

Standard Deviation: 5.8 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10 (9)

Cases: 1,711 (1,625)

Spread: 24.6 (13.0)

Standard Deviation: 7.1 (4.8) 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Portland, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
124

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

OUTLIERS

SALT LAKE CITY-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF UTAH

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.0%

SLC

Booker

Judges: 8

Cases: 1,504

Spread: 7.8

Standard Deviation: 3.0 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-15.1%

SLC

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-29.0%

SLC

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 6

Cases: 1,428

Spread: 14.7

Standard Deviation: 5.6

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9 (6)

Cases: 1,733 (1,044)

Spread: 20.1 (1.9)

Standard Deviation: 5.8 (0.7)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Salt Lake City, there were three statistical outliers 

over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or 

below a red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
125

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-6.5%

SD

Booker

OUTLIERS

SAN DIEGO-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judges: 9

Cases: 2,295

Spread: 13.9

Standard Deviation: 4.5 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.5%

SD

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-23.8%

SD

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 14

Cases: 5,288

Spread: 21.3

Standard Deviation: 6.4 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 16 (15)

Cases: 4,377 (4,315)

Spread: 54.4 (38.3)

Standard Deviation: 13.0 (9.7)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In San Diego, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
126

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

0.7%

SAN 

JUAN

Booker

OUTLIERS

SAN JUAN-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Judges: 7

Cases: 923

Spread: 9.6

Standard Deviation: 3.6

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.8%

SAN 

JUAN

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-1.2%

SAN 

JUAN

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 8

Cases: 1,524

Spread: 20.9

Standard Deviation: 7.2

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 9 (8)

Cases: 4,013 (3,486)

Spread: 22.2 (19.9)

Standard Deviation: 7.4 (6.3) 

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In San Juan, there was one statistical outlier over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.
127

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-0.2%

TAMPA

Booker

OUTLIERS

TAMPA-BASED 

FEDERAL JUDGES

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Judges: 7

Cases: 1,283

Spread: 11.9

Standard Deviation: 3.7 

BOOKER PERIOD

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-4.7%

TAMPA

Gall

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

-9.6%

TAMPA

Post

GALL PERIOD

Judges: 9 (6)

Cases: 1,567 (1,218)

Spread: 29.7 (6.7)

Standard Deviation: 9.6 (2.3) 

POST-REPORT PERIOD

Judges: 10 (7)

Cases: 2,429 (1,866)

Spread: 22.7 (3.1)

Standard Deviation: 5.9 (1.1)

35 to 39.99%

30 to 34.99%

25 to 29.99%

20 to 24.99%

15 to 19.99%

10 to 14.99%

5 to 9.99%

0 to 4.99%

-0.01 to -4.99%

-5 to -9.99%

-10 to -14.99%

-15 to -19.99%

-20 to -24.99%

-25 to -29.99%

-30 to -34.99%

-35 to -39.99%

Legend

Legend

In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both

the total spread and standard deviation measures, the

Commission re-calculated those measures excluding

outlier judges.

In Tampa, there were six statistical outliers over the 

three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a 

red line on the graphs. 

The total spread and standard deviation after excluding 

the outliers are reported in parentheses following the 

total spread and standard deviation before excluding 

the outliers.

APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation
128

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

Endnotes

1 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

2 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing (“2012 Booker Report”). 

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

(November 2017).

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

sentence on average than White males). 

5 See USSG §1B1.1, commen. (backg’d) (“Subsections (a), (b), and (c) [of §1B1.1] are structured to reflect the 

three-step process used in determining the particular sentence to be imposed. If, after step (c), the court imposes a 

sentence that is outside the guidelines framework, such a sentence is considered a ‘variance.’); see also United States 

v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 801 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1294 (2013) (“A ‘departure’ is typically a change 

from the final sentencing range computed by examining the provisions of the Guidelines themselves. . . . A ‘variance,’ 

by contrast, occurs when a judge imposes a sentence above or below the otherwise properly calculated final sentencing 

range based on application of the other statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”). 

6 2012 Booker Report, at 98.

7 See Booker, 543 U.S. at 248, 259 (“[W]e conclude that the constitutional jury trial requirement is not compatible 

with the Act as written and that some severance and excision are necessary. . . . The remainder of the Act function[s] 

independently.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

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

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

355 (1991). Senator Kennedy, the leading sponsor of the SRA, referred to Congress’s concern over sentencing disparities 

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

with Order, 16 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 353, 357 (1979).

9 Report of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong. (1st Sess.), at 41-42 

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

Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order 6-7 (1973) (criticizing the “wild array of sentencing judgments [in federal 

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

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

10 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(6); 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f).

11 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f).

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

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

disparities].”).

13 See 2012 Booker Report, at 98-104.

14 518 U.S. 996 (1996).

15 542 U.S. 296 (June 24, 2004). 

16 543 U.S. 200 (June 10, 2005).

17 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 28 (December 10, 2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (December 10, 

2007).

18 2012 Booker Report, at 98.

19 Id. at 104.
129

20 Id. at 100. The extent of reduction varied broadly during each period and did not appear to have been affected 

by legislation or Supreme Court decisions. Id.

21 Id. at 98. 

22 Id. 

23 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2017 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-53 (2018) (non-government 

sponsored below range cases constituted 20.1% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2017); 2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing

Statistics 50 (2011) (non-government sponsored below range cases constituted 17.8% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2010); 

2006 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics 52 (2007)(non-government sponsored below range cases constituted 

12.0% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2006). 

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

years 2012 through 2016. See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 

Booker Report 6 (2017). The updated data analyses described in this report do not include the Koon and PROTECT Act 

periods that were part of the 2012 and 2017 data analyses. 

25 Even if a judge had at least 50 cases in a given period, he or she may not have been included in the analysis of 

one or both of the other periods studied depending the size of the judge’s caseloads in those periods.

26 Random assignment is the general rule in the federal system. See, e.g., S.D.N.Y., Rules for the Division of 

Business Among District Judges (2017), Rule 6, http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/rules.pdf (“In a criminal case, after 

an indictment has been returned by the Grand Jury or a notice has been filed by the United States Attorney’s Office of 

an intention to file an information upon the defendant’s waiver of indictment, the magistrate judge on duty will randomly 

draw from the criminal wheel, in open court, the name of a judge to whom the case should be assigned for all purposes.”); 

N.D. Ill. Local Rules (2017), Rule 1 (stating that, as a general matter, “the assignment of cases shall be by lot”), https://

www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PrintContent.aspx?rid=44; see generally Report of the Proceeding of the Judicial Conference of the

United States 13 (2000) (noting that “all [federal] courts . . . employ random case assignment procedures”). Depending 

in the district, there are certain exceptions to this general rule, such as a single judge’s being assigned several “related” 

cases (e.g., a large-scale drug-trafficking or fraud prosecution of multiple defendants, using separate indictments) or senior 

judges’ being permitted to opt out of certain types of criminal cases. See, e.g., D. Minn., Order for Assignment of Cases, 

http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/cmecf/Order-for-Assignment-of-Cases.pdf (2017).

 27 See, e.g., Crystal S. Yang, Have Interjudge Sentencing Disparities Increased in an Advisory Guidelines Reime? Evidence 

From Booker, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1268, 1297 (2014); Ryan W. Scott, Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, 

63 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 24 (2010). 

28 Visiting district judges (with one exception, noted below), circuit judges sitting by designation as district judges, 

and all magistrate judges were excluded from the analyses. Senior district judges who opted to hear criminal cases were 

included in the analyses, assuming they met the minimum 50-case requirement discussed above. A single visiting judge 

was included in the analysis because he served as a full-time visiting judge in a city for several years and met the 50-case 

minimum for one period. 

29 See National Geographic Society, United States Regions, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/unitedstates-regions/. 

30 Only the D.C. Circuit was not represented in the analysis. The sole district in the D.C. Circuit is the District 

for the District of Columbia, whose criminal caseload was too small to allow an analysis of its judges (based on the 

Commission’s minimum 50-case per judge requirement). 

31 Some of the larger cities by population were excluded in order to assure better geographic representation by 

other cities—e.g., larger cities like Fort Worth and San Jose were excluded because other cities in the same immediate 

geographic area had more judges and larger caseloads (i.e., Dallas and San Francisco), while less populous cities like 

Saint Louis and Denver were included to assure representation from all regions in the country. The cities were selected 

for inclusion in the Commission’s study before the results of the analyses of their judges’ sentencing practices were 

conducted.

32 Although Alexandria is not itself a major city, the federal district courthouse in Alexandria serves the entire 

metropolitan area of Northern Virginia, which is a densely populated area. See About Northern Virginia, http://www.

novachamber.org/about-northern-virginia.html (noting that the counties of Northern Virginia, near Washington D.C., 

together have a population of over 2 million people).

ENDNOTES
130

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

33 Rather than looking at all federal judges in greater New York City, the analysis is limited to federal judges in 

Manhattan. Consideration of all federal judges in the larger city would require two different federal districts—the Eastern 

and Southern Districts of New York—to be considered together.

34 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-53 (2017) (Table N) (49.1% of all 

cases had within range sentences, and 2.9% of cases had above range sentences).

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

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

he sentence may be imposed at any point within the applicable guideline range, provided that the sentence . . . is not less 

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

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

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

than 120 months. 

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

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

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

only 8 months below the guideline minimums for the most serious offenders sentenced under §4B1.4 (after full credit for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent’g Rptr. 18, 23, (1998) (noting that substantial assistance motions “were almost always granted” once filed by the 

prosecution); L. Felipe Restrepo, To Be Or Not To Be A Cooperating Defendant, Crim. Justice 25 (Winter 1993) (“Practically 

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

37 Until the Supreme Court decided Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (April 3, 2017), it was unclear whether 

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

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

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

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

minimum of 46 months for a bank robbery conviction to 1 month in order to account for a 84-month consecutive sentence 

under § 924(c)), while others believed that they had no such authority to vary on that ground. The percent difference from 

the guideline minimum in cases where courts did vary on that ground was usually very substantial. Because the extent 

of a below range sentence was often extremely large when a judge varied—and thereby could skew those judges’ average 

percent differences from the guideline minimums compared to the average percent difference of judges who did not 

believe they could vary on that ground—all cases with a count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) or 1028A or other 

statutes requiring a consecutive mandatory sentence of imprisonment were excluded from the Commission’s analysis. In 

addition, the Commission excluded cases with a single count of conviction under such a statute because a court lacked 

authority to depart or vary downwardly in such cases. 

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

case with a guideline minimum of less than 10 months necessarily has fallen in Zone A or Zone B of the Sentencing Table. 

Before 2010, cases with guideline minimums of 8 or 9 months fell within Zone C. In order to ensure consistency in the 

Commission’s analysis of cases from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2017, the Commission has excluded all cases 

with guideline minimums less than 10 months for that entire time period rather than exclude cases based on their zone 

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

minimums of 0 months, judges cannot depart or vary below the minimum and, in addition, there is no mathematical way to 

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

cases. Second, because all of ranges with guideline minimums below 10 months are narrow and their minimums are low 

(e.g., 0-6 months, 6-12 months), sentences imposed above or below the guideline minimums have a much greater positive 

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

ranges have higher and broader ranges of months (e.g., 12-18 months, 46-57 months, and 121-151 months). Including 

cases with guideline minimums below 10 months would thus skew the average percent difference analysis.
131

39 The Commission excluded 10,753 cases because of incomplete sentencing information in those cases. Such 

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

in a case or whether a statutory mandatory minimum penalty applied.

40 Of the 291,763 cases, 3.7% were excluded for insufficient documentation. In addition, 15.7% had their 

guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were subject to a mandatory minimum sentence 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 26.1% had a substantial assistance or fast-track departure; 5.6% had at least 

one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as section 924(c); 0.6% had a guideline 

minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure and variance to life imprisonment; and 15.5% had 

guideline minimums of less than 10 months. Some cases fell within more than one of these groups, which explains why 

the total amount of all these cases combined exceeds the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above.

41 After both the exclusions of the five categories of cases and the additional exclusions of cases handled by 

judges who did not meet the 50-case minimum and cases with incomplete information, the national caseload resembles 

the 30-city caseload during the same 13-year time period. After the same exclusions, the same percentage of all cases, 

49.2% (478,833 of 972,648 cases), remained. The percentage of excluded cases (nationally) was as follows: 19.1% had 

their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were subject to a mandatory minimum sentence 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 21.1% had a substantial assistance or fast-track departure; 4.2% had at least 

one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as section 924(c); 0.5% had a guideline 

minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure and variance to life imprisonment; and 21.8% of cases had 

guideline minimums of less than 10 months. The analysis also excluded 6.1% of cases nationally because of incomplete 

sentencing information in the documentation submitted to the Commission.

42 See Yang, supra note 27, at 1324-25.

43 In over 90% of the 19,460 cases subject to mandatory minimum penalties (17,755, or 91.2%), defendants were 

subject to either 60- or 120-month mandatory minimum sentences. The remaining 8.7% of cases had a wide variety of 

statutes requiring mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 1 month to 300 months. Of the cases with 60-month 

mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 118 months and the average sentence imposed was 

97 months (37 months above the statutory mandatory minimum). Of the cases with 120-month mandatory minimum 

sentences, the average guideline minimum was 198 months and the average sentence imposed was 171 months (51 

months above the mandatory minimum). 

44 See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 50 n.6; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 

1903-04, 1908 (2018); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1349 (2016); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 

530, 535, 542, 545 (2013). The three-step Booker process is discussed at USSG §1B1.1, comment. (backg’d).

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

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

and upward departures and variances).

46 See, e.g., Scott, supra note 27, at 31-34 (comparing average sentences of judges in Boston after Booker); Paul J. 

Hofer et al., The Effect of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity, 90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology

239, 286-96 (1999) (comparing average sentences for judges in several cities, both before and after effective date of 

federal sentencing guidelines). 

47 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-32 (2017) (Table 13) (average sentence 

for drug-trafficking cases was 70 months, and average sentence for firearms cases was 71 months; conversely, average 

sentence for immigration cases was 12 months and average sentence for fraud cases was 26 months).

48 In the past two decades, the national average guideline minimum for all federal offenders consistently has been 

around five years (60 months). See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Federal Alternative-To-Incarceration Court Programs 32 (2017) 

(average guideline minimum in 2016 was 59 months); 2012 Booker Report, at 60 (showing guideline minimum slightly 

above or slightly below 60 months from 1996 through 2011).

49 See Michael O. Finkelstein & Bruce Levin, Statistics for Lawyers 22 (2d ed. 2000).

50 For example, if the judge at the top of the bar graph had an average percent difference of 10.0% and the judge 

at the bottom of the bar graph had an average percent difference of -40.0%, the total spread for the city would be 50.0.

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

quotation marks omitted). 

ENDNOTES
132

January 2019

Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices

| https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 

52 Charlotte, Memphis, and San Antonio each had fewer than five judges in at least one period.

53 The specific percentages (taken to two decimal points) were 32.43% and 17.02%, which when summed and 

rounded equals 49.5.

54 The following 23 cities had increases in their total spreads from the Booker to Gall Periods: Alexandria, Atlanta, 

Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, 

Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, and Tampa.

The following seven cities had decreases in their total spreads from the Booker to Gall Periods: Cleveland, Columbus, 

Detroit, Manhattan, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Seattle.

The following 22 cities had increases in their standard deviations from the Booker to Gall Periods: Alexandria, Atlanta, 

Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, 

Pittsburgh, Portland, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, and Tampa.

The following five cities had decreases in their standard deviations from the Booker to Gall Periods: Cleveland, Columbus, 

Manhattan, Oklahoma City, and Seattle.

55 The following 20 cities had increases in their total spreads from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Alexandria, 

Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Memphis, Miami, Philadelphia, 

Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Juan, and Seattle.

The following ten cities had decreases in their total spreads from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Boston, Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Tampa.

The following 16 cities had increases in their standard deviations from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Atlanta, Cleveland, 

Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San 

Diego, San Juan, and Seattle.

The following 11 cities had decreases in their standard deviations from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Alexandria, 

Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Tampa.

56 The main four guidelines constituted 71.0% of all cases in the Commission’s city-level dataset, while all other 

guidelines constituted 29.0% of cases. 

57 Because of rounding to one decimal point, some of the totals for the cities in Appendix C add up to less than 

100.0%.

58 Weighting is a common technique in the social sciences whereby a researcher assigns comparable weights 

to different datapoints in an analysis in order to control for unweighted differences. Weighting is most commonly used 

in survey methodology. See, e.g., Luke W. Miratrix et al., Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey 

Experiments, 26 Political Analysis 275 (2018). The Commission used a somewhat similar method to control for differences 

in caseload composition among the judges in each city and among the cities’ caseloads over time.

59 For that weighting analysis, only judges who met the 50-case minimum for two consecutive periods (e.g., 

Booker to Gall, or Gall to Post-Report) were included in order to determine the effect of changes in the city’s caseload 

composition from one period to the next. Therefore, it is not possible to compare all three periods to each other because 

there were not the exact same judges in all three periods in any of the 30 cities. Therefore, only two periods at a time 

(Booker to Gall, and Gall to Post-Report) could be compared based on the judges common to those two periods.

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

fiscal year 2017 (after the case exclusions discussed above):

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

2B1.1: 46.0% 

2D1.1: 46.1%

2K2.1: 60.8%

2L1.2: 61.1%

Other: 49.6%
133

61 In the Booker and Gall Periods, Houston had the following percentages of guideline types:

Booker Period Gall Period 

2B1.1: 7.8% 2B1.1: 8.0% 

2D1.1: 20.3% 2D1.1: 10.9%

2K2.1: 17.2% 2K2.1: 8.3% 

2L1.2: 24.0% 2L1.2: 51.2% 

Other: 30.7% Other: 21.6%

62 Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 291 (3d ed. 2011).

63 Id.

64 See, e.g., Nancy Pfenning, Elementary Statistics 96-97 (2011) (discussing the 1.5 x IQR test). 

65 Although there were 413 different judges in the 30-city dataset, many of those judges sentenced in more than 

one period. Therefore, the outlier analysis includes a total of 909 unique analyses of judicial sentencing practices in the 

dataset during three periods. Note that a judge could be an outlier in one period but not an outlier in a different period.

66 The cities with at least one outlier judge in at least one period were Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, 

Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, 

Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Juan, and Tampa.

67 See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 49, at 18-19; see also FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra, at 

298.

68 Rebecca M. Warner, Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques 1114 (2013 2d ed).

69 The standard deviation is a less meaningful statistic when there are only a few datapoints being analyzed. The 

Commission thus only has reported the standard deviation for cities with at least five judges in all three periods.

70 See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 49, at 18-19 (discussing the manner in which the standard deviation is 

calculated); Warner, supra note 68, at 59 (same). Reporting the standard deviation is preferable to reporting the variance. 

The variance, which is the standard deviation squared, is more sensitive to outliers than the standard deviation because 

the influence of an outlier is magnified (insofar as the outlier’s average percent difference from the guideline minimum is 

squared in calculating the variance). 

ENDNOTES
THURGOOD MARSHALL FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUILDING

ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE N.E. 

SUITE 2-500, SOUTH LOBBY

WASHINGTON, DC 20002-8002

WWW.USSC.GOV

United States Sentencing Commission