Revocations Among Federal Offenders

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

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

January 2019

United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Suite 2-500, South Lobby

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov
Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

Office of Research and Data

S. Alexander Maisel, J.D., M.A. 

Staff Attorney

Office of General Counsel 

Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

i

Table of Contents

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

Key Findings..............................................................................................2

Background...............................................................................................3

Criminal History Rules..................................................................3

Revocations and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines...............5

Data Analysis............................................................................................8

Prevalence and Impact of Revocations......................................9

Reasons for Revocation..............................................................11

Impact of Technical Revocations on Criminal History 

Score and Category....................................................................13

Variation by Instant Offense...............................................................14

Firearms Offenders....................................................................14

Drug Trafficking Offenders.......................................................16

Fraud Offenders.........................................................................18

Immigration Offenders..............................................................20

Revived Convictions.............................................................................22

How Often Are Stale Convictions Revived?............................23

Impact of Revocations on Safety Valve Eligibility.........................24

Background..................................................................................24

Analysis........................................................................................25

Impact of Revocations on Career Offender Status.......................28

Background..................................................................................28

Analysis........................................................................................29

Conclusion..............................................................................................30
United States Sentencing Commission
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

1

Introduction

A defendant’s criminal history plays an important role 

in federal criminal sentencing. Congress, by statute, and the 

United States Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) in 

the sentencing guidelines have highlighted the importance 

of a defendant’s criminal history as a factor to be weighed 

in sentencing defendants. Section 3553(a) of title 18, which 

details factors to be considered in imposing a sentence, lists 

“the history and characteristics of the defendant” as one of the 

primary considerations.1 Likewise, the sentencing guidelines 

consider the criminal history of a defendant as one of two primary 

considerations—along with offense severity—in determining the 

appropriate sentence for an offense. 

The Commission has engaged in an ongoing study of 

the criminal history of federal offenders and has issued several 

reports examining the overall role and impact of its criminal 

history rules. These publications have examined criminal history 

as a predictor of recidivism, the overall impact of criminal history 

on sentencing, and the nature and severity of criminal history 

of federal offenders. Most recently, the Commission released 

The Criminal History of Federal Offenders,

2 which utilized recent 

technological improvements to expand the scope of information 

the Commission collects on an offender’s criminal history and 

provided a more complete assessment of the criminal histories of 

federal offenders. 

This publication explores a subset of the Commission’s 

criminal history rules—those regarding the revocation of terms 

of probation, parole, supervised release, special parole, and 

mandatory release. These rules affect an offender’s criminal 

history score3 and Criminal History Category. Additionally, this 

report explores the impact of revocations upon safety valve 

relief and the career offender guideline. As part of this work, 

the Commission analyzed the prevalence of revocations among 

federal offenders and the nature of the revocations. 
United States Sentencing Commission

2

Key Findings

The key findings of the Commission’s study of revocations 

are that:

• Only a minority of offenders (35.0%) with criminal history 

points under the federal sentencing guidelines had at least 

one scored conviction with a revocation. Most often such 

offenders had only one such conviction. 

• For the minority of offenders who did have at least one scored 

conviction with a revocation, it often increased their criminal 

history score and resulting Criminal History Category. Among 

offenders with at least one scored conviction in their criminal 

history, three-fifths (60.2%) received additional criminal 

history points, and just under a third (30.9%) received an 

increase in Criminal History Category. For those offenders 

who received an increase into a higher Criminal History 

Category, the impact was generally limited to one Criminal 

History Category. 

• The rate at which offenders had at least one scored conviction 

with a revocation varied significantly depending on the type 

of federal offender. Firearms offenders were the most likely 

(54.3%) and immigration offenders the least likely (20.9%) 

to have at least one scored conviction with a revocation. 

However, the impact of such convictions on their criminal 

history scores and Criminal History Categories varied much 

less. Among offenders with at least one such conviction, 

firearms offenders were the most often (66.2%) and 

immigration offenders least often (55.9%) to receive additional 

criminal history points. Furthermore, among offenders who 

received additional criminal history points, those points 

resulted in a higher Criminal History Category most often for 

drug trafficking offenders (53.1%) and least often for firearms 

offenders (42.9%).

• The Commission cannot state with certainty how often 

revocations are based on new crimes versus technical 

violations because the underlying basis for the revocation 

could not be determined in 38.7 percent of the cases studied. 

However, between 38.9 percent and 77.5 percent of the 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

3

revocations studied were for new crimes, and between 22.5 

and 61.1 percent were for technical violations. 

• Prior revocations did not significantly limit offender eligibility 

for the statutory safety valve, which relieves certain drug 

trafficking offenders from otherwise applicable statutory 

mandatory minimum penalties. Of the drug trafficking 

offenders studied, only 2.3 percent appear to be ineligible 

for the safety valve based solely on scored convictions with 

revocations.

• Prior revocations had a more significant impact on offenders 

who received the career offender enhancement at §4B1.1. 

Of the career offenders studied, 10.7 percent qualified for 

the career offender enhancement in part because of scored 

convictions with revocations. 

Background 

Criminal History Rules

Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual provides the 

process to score a defendant’s criminal history. Just as Congress 

recognized in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 9944 that a 

defendant’s record of past criminal conduct is relevant to the 

purposes of sentencing, so too did the original Commission in 

its Guidelines Manual promulgated in 1987. Accordingly, the 

Introductory Commentary to Chapter 4 states: 

To protect the public from further crimes of 

the particular defendant, the likelihood of 

recidivism and future criminal behavior must 

be considered. Repeated criminal behavior 

is an indicator of a limited likelihood of a 

successful rehabilitation.5

As a practical matter, the Commission’s recent report on 

the criminal history and recidivism of federal offenders found 

that criminal history score is a strong predictor of an offender’s 

likelihood of recidivating. It states, “...[C]onsistent with its past 

work in this area, the Commission’s present study found that 
United States Sentencing Commission

4

recidivism rates are closely correlated with total criminal history 

points and resulting Criminal History Category classification, as 

offenders with lower criminal history scores have lower recidivism 

rates than offenders with higher criminal history scores.”6

The sentencing guidelines establish a method for evaluating 

a defendant’s criminal history by assigning points to certain prior 

criminal convictions and adjudications of juvenile delinquency 

based on the length of the sentence imposed for those offenses. 

Through this process, the court calculates a defendant’s “criminal 

history score,” which is then assigned to one of six Criminal 

History Categories. The combination of the “offense level” of a 

defendant’s instant offense and the defendant’s Criminal History 

Category determines the sentencing range, expressed in months, 

for the offense. 

As part of this process, a defendant’s past convictions 

are assigned one, two, or three points based on the nature of 

the offense and the type and length of the sentence imposed. 

These point assignments are designed to reflect the seriousness 

of the crime of conviction. Criminal history points are assigned as 

follows:

(a) Add 3 points for each prior sentence of 

imprisonment exceeding one year and one 

month. 

(b) Add 2 points for each prior sentence of 

imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted 

in (a).

(c) Add 1 point for each prior sentence not 

counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for 

this subsection.

An additional two points are added when the defendant committed 

the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, 

including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, 

work release, or escape status. One point is also added, up to a 

total of three additional points, for each prior sentence resulting 

from a conviction of a “crime of violence” that did not receive 

any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such sentence was 

treated as a single sentence.7
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

5

Revocations and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 

Since the inception of the first Guidelines Manual in 

1987, the calculation of the defendant’s criminal history score 

has included the consideration of sentences imposed upon 

revocations of terms of probation, parole, and supervised release 

in §4A1.2(k).8 A revocation occurs when an offender has been 

released from incarceration under the supervision of the court, 

or placed on probation as an alternative to incarceration, and 

subsequently the court determines that the offender has violated 

the conditions of supervision. Usually, but not always, this results 

in an additional period of incarceration. For example, a defendant 

might be sentenced to a term of two years of incarceration with 

three years of supervised release to follow. If, while the defendant 

is on supervised release, the defendant violates the conditions 

of supervision,9 the sentencing court can revoke the defendant’s 

term of supervised release. The judge then determines whether to 

extend or modify conditions of supervision, or whether to return 

the defendant to incarceration. In addition, a revocation can 

occur upon a violation of probation. For example, a sentencing 

court might decide that as an alternative to incarceration, a 

defendant is to be placed on 12 months of supervised probation. 

If, during that 12 months, the defendant violates the conditions 

of the defendant’s probation, the sentencing court can revoke 

the defendant’s probation and either modify the defendant’s 

conditions of supervised probation or impose a term of 

incarceration. 

Under §4A1.2(k), a defendant’s criminal history score 

can be affected by revocations of probation, parole, supervised 

release, special parole, and mandatory release. When a revocation 

has occurred, any term of imprisonment imposed for the violation 

that led to the revocation is added to the original sentence, and 

the total sentence is then used for the purposes of assigning 

criminal history points.10 The addition of the revocation time to 

the original sentence can affect both criminal history points and 

Criminal History Category. For example, if an offender received 

a term of one year of imprisonment with two years of supervised 

release, that sentence would be treated as a 12-month sentence 

and, under §4A1.1, assigned two criminal history points. However, 

if the offender had his or her supervised release revoked and 
United States Sentencing Commission

6

received a six-month imprisonment sentence on the revocation, 

under §4A1.2(k), the six-month sentence would be added to 

the original twelve-month sentence. The resulting 18-month 

sentence would then receive three criminal history points. In 

effect, the original sentence and the revocation sentence are 

combined and treated as one sentence. Accordingly, any increase 

in criminal history points due to the revocation may also result in 

an increase in Criminal History Category.11

Revocations can also affect the time frame for scoring a 

criminal history event under §4A1.2(e), which provides that any 

prior sentence exceeding 13 months imposed within 15 years of 

the commencement of the instant offense is scored. It further 

provides that regardless of when the sentence was imposed, 

the sentence is counted if it resulted in the defendant being 

incarcerated during any part of that 15-year period. As for any 

other prior adult sentence, the guidelines require that the sentence 

be imposed within ten years of the defendant’s commencement 

of the instant offense. This means that some prior offenses 

are deemed “stale”—that is, too old to be relevant—and are not 

counted.12 However, where a two-point offense became a threepoint offense because of a revocation, the resulting total of 

adding both sentences (the original sentence and the revocation 

sentence) also affects the time period for which it is scored. The 

original two-point offense only can be scored during a ten-year 

period from the date of imposition of the sentence. The threepoint offense, however, is not only subject to a 15-year period, 

but the time frame is measured from the date of last incarceration 

rather than from the date of the imposition of sentence.13

Because of the shift in both the length of the applicable 

time period and the date used for measuring that time period, 

revocations can “revive” otherwise stale convictions. That is, 

sentences that were too old to be scored as one or two points 

can potentially be scored if a revocation sentence increases the 

criminal history points to three and the offense falls within 15 

years from the date of last incarceration. The change in scoring 

can have potentially significant consequences, including additional 

criminal history points, a higher Criminal History Category, or 

even the imposition of a sentencing enhancement. 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

7

For example, the career offender guideline14 at §4B1.1 

requires that a defendant have “two prior felony convictions 

of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense” 

before the enhancement applies. Section 4B1.2(c)(2) provides 

that at least two of the “prior felony convictions” must receive 

criminal history points and be scored separately under §4A1.1. 

Stale convictions, therefore, cannot count as predicate “prior 

felony convictions” for a career offender enhancement. However, 

where a revocation “revived” a stale conviction, that conviction 

is scored and can count as a predicate offense resulting in a 

sentencing enhancement under the career offender guideline. 

Although not examined in this study, stale convictions 

can also be revived and used to enhance base offense levels 

under §2K2.1 (Unlawful Receipt, Possession or Transportation 

of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving 

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

Remaining in the United States). For example, under §2K2.1, a 

defendant receives a four-level increase to the Base Offense Level 

if the instant offense occurs subsequent to the defendant being 

convicted of two prior felonies which are crimes of violence or 

controlled substance offenses. Like the career offender guideline, 

when a revocation revives an otherwise stale conviction, the prior 

conviction is then scored and can count as a predicate offense for 

the purposes of an enhancement under §2K2.115 and §2L1.2.16 

Similarly, a revived conviction might also bar an otherwisequalified defendant from receiving relief from a statutory mandatory 

minimum penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).17 Commonly known 

as the “statutory safety valve,” this provision allows a sentencing 

court to impose a sentence without regard to a statutory minimum 

penalty when a defendant meets certain requirements. The first 

of these requirements is that the defendant does not have more 

than one criminal history point under the sentencing guidelines. 

In some cases, a “revived” conviction that would not be scored 

without a revocation could potentially add criminal history points, 

barring an individual from receiving the safety valve relief they 

would otherwise receive, which would result in a higher guidelines 

range18 and longer sentence. 
United States Sentencing Commission

8

Data Analysis

To determine the impact of revocations upon criminal 

history scores and Criminal History Categories, the Commission 

examined a ten-percent random sample of fiscal year 2016 

offenders who had a criminal history score of one point or greater. 

There were 3,696 offenders in the sample. Offenders who had 

convictions but a criminal history score of zero may have had 

revocations in their criminal history, but those revocations did not 

impact their criminal history score. They were thus not included 

in the sample.19 

As the purpose of the study was to determine the impact 

of the Chapter Four rules regarding revocations, the Commission 

collected information only for convictions20 that ultimately 

received criminal history points. These convictions are referred 

to as “scored convictions” in this publication. For each “scored 

conviction,” the Commission collected the following information:

1. Whether the offender had a term of probation, 

parole, or supervised release for the conviction 

that was revoked;

2. The number of points the conviction received;

3. The number of points the conviction would 

have received without the revocation(s); and

4. Whether the conviction would have been stale 

without the revocation(s);

This information was then used in the analyses discussed below.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

9

Prevalence and Impact of Revocations

As reflected in Figure 1, 35.0 percent of the offenders 

in the study had a scored conviction with a revocation in their 

criminal history. 

Of the offenders in the sample, 22.0 percent had a total of 

one scored conviction with a revocation, 7.7 percent had two, and 

5.3 percent had three or more (see Table 1).

While only a minority of the offenders studied had a 

scored conviction with a revocation, when such convictions did 

occur, they often affected the offenders’ criminal history score. As 

shown in Table 2, for those offenders who had at least one scored 

conviction with a revocation, the majority received additional 

criminal history points. Of the 1,294 offenders with at least one 

scored conviction with a revocation, three-fifths (60.2%) received 

Figure 1. Revocations

FY 2016

Offenders Whose CHC

Increased Due To Points

(51.4%)

Offenders Whose CHC 

Did Not Increase

(48.6%)

Offenders With Revocations

That Received Points

(60.2%)

Offenders With Revocations 

That Did Not Receive Points

(39.8%)

Offenders With

Revocations

(35.0%)

Offenders Without 

Revocations

(65.0%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Offenders in 

Revocation Study

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=3,696

No Revocations 65.0%

One Revocation 22.0%

Two Revocations 7.7%

Three or More Revocations 5.3%

Table 1. Distribution of Revocations

FY 2016

Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=1,294

No Points 39.8%

One Point 20.6%

Two Points 16.1%

Three Points 14.7%

Four or More Points 8.8%

Table 2. Distribution of Points Due to Revocations

FY 2016

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

10

additional criminal history points. Most often (20.6%) one 

criminal history point was added, but 16.1 percent received two 

additional points, 14.7 percent received three additional points, 

and 8.8 percent received an additional four or more points. Two 

offenders received 15 additional points resulting from multiple 

revocations. 

For many offenders, the additional criminal history points 

also increased their resulting Criminal History Category. In fact, 

a higher Criminal History Category resulted for just over one-half 

(51.4%) of the 776 offenders who received additional criminal 

history points. 

Where an offender’s Criminal History Category increased 

due to a revocation, the impact was generally a difference of one 

category. Each column in Table 3 reflects the number of offenders 

studied in each Criminal History Category. In order to determine 

the impact of revocations on the Criminal History Category, 

for each offender, the Commission recalculated the offender’s 

Criminal History Category in the absence of any revocations, 

which is termed the “adjusted” Criminal History Category. The 

adjusted Criminal History Category is shown along the rows. For 

example, there were 82 offenders who were in Criminal History 

Category VI in part because of a revocation. If the additional 

criminal history points they received for revocations were 

subtracted from their criminal history score, of the 82 offenders, 

79.3 percent would drop by one category to Criminal History 

Table 3. Actual and Adjusted CHCs for Offenders Whose CHCs Increased Due to Revocations

FY 2016

Actual CHC I

N=0

Actual CHC II

N=34

Actual CHC III

N=71

Actual CHC IV

N=113

Actual CHC V

N=99

Actual CHC VI

N=82

Adjusted CHC I 100.0% 19.7% 0.9% 0 0

Adjusted CHC II 80.3% 7.1% 1.0% 0

Adjusted CHC III 92.0% 7.1% 2.4%

Adjusted CHC IV 91.9% 18.3%

Adjusted CHC V 79.3%

Adjusted CHC VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

11

Category V, meaning that revocations increased their Criminal 

History Category by one category. Another 18.3 percent would 

drop by two categories to Criminal History Category IV, meaning 

that revocations increased their Criminal History Category by two 

categories. And 2.4 percent would drop by three categories to 

Criminal History Category III, meaning that revocations increased 

their Criminal History Category by three categories. This pattern 

generally holds across all Criminal History Categories, as 100 

percent of Criminal History Category II offenders, 80.3 percent of 

Criminal History Category III offenders, 92.0 percent of Criminal 

History Category IV offenders, and 91.9 percent of Criminal 

History Category V offenders received an increase of one category 

because of revocations. 

Reasons for Revocation 

There were 1,294 offenders in the sample who had at least 

one scored conviction with a revocation. These 1,294 offenders 

had a total of 2,108 scored convictions with a revocation. The 

Commission analyzed sentencing documents to determine 

whether the underlying basis for each of the revocations was the 

result of a new crime or a technical violation, which is a question 

often asked by policy makers. 

In this report, technical violations are defined as violations 

of the conditions of supervision that typically do not involve the 

commission of new criminal offenses and which did not result 

in new criminal charges or convictions.21 Examples of technical 

violations include failure to report to a probation officer or failure 

to pay a fine. Technical violations are contrasted with “new 

crime” violations, which occur when an offender commits a new 

criminal offense, resulting in new criminal charges or convictions. 

As reflected in other studies, a failed drug test or an admission 

of drug use to a probation officer is often considered to be a 

technical violation,22 and therefore is classified as such for this 

publication. Several circuits, however, have held that possession 

of a controlled substance may be inferred from a failed drug 

test,23 and therefore is in fact a “new crime” violation. For readers 

who would classify such offenses as a “new crime” violation, the 

Commission determined that over 40 percent of the 474 technical-
United States Sentencing Commission

12

only violations in the study involved either a failed drug test or 

other evidence of possession of a controlled substance—142 

(30.0%) involved failed drug testing and an additional 55 (11.6%) 

involved other evidence of possession of a controlled substance, 

such as an admission to a probation officer of drug use. 

As reflected in Figure 2, of the cases for which the basis for 

the revocation could be determined, 63.3 percent were for new 

crimes and 36.7 percent were for technical violations. However, 

the Commission could not determine the basis for the revocation 

in a substantial portion of the revocations studied—38.7 percent 

—because presentence investigation reports are not uniform in 

reporting whether a revocation has occurred, and they frequently 

do not provide details on the nature of the revocation. In 

Figure 3. Reasons for Revocations

FY 2016

New criminal 

conduct

38.9%

Unknown

38.7%

Technical 

violation(s) only

22.5%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Figure 2. Reasons for Revocations – Basis of Revocation Determined

FY 2016

New criminal 

conduct

63.3%

Technical 

violation(s) only

36.7%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Basis Determined

61.3%

Unknown

38.7%
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

13

particular, the amount and quality of information reported on the 

nature of revocation varies by jurisdiction. 

Because the reason is unknown for so many revocations, 

a more accurate reading of the data in Figure 3 is that at least 

38.9 percent of the revocations were for new crimes, but that 

figure could be as high as 77.5 percent if all the revocations for 

unknown reasons were for new crimes. Similarly, at least 22.5 

percent of all revocations resulted from a technical violation, but 

that figure could be as high as 61.1 percent if all revocations for 

unknown reasons were for technical reasons. 

Impact of Technical Revocations on Criminal History Score and 

Category

The Commission has received comment over the years 

regarding the impact of revocations, much of which focused on 

the impact of technical violations. As noted above, at least 22.5 

percent of all revocations in fiscal year 2016 were technical in 

nature.24 Given the ongoing interest in the impact of technical 

revocations,25 the Commission further analyzed this subset of 

offenders. 

Of the 368 offenders who had a scored conviction with 

at least one revocation for a technical violation, 57.5 percent 

received additional criminal history points. As reflected in Figure 

4, almost half (48.3%) of those offenders who received criminal 

history points due to technical revocations increased to a higher 

Increased CHC

48.3%

No Increase in CHC

51.7%

Figure 4. Impact on CHC for Offenders Who Received Points Due to Technical Revocations

FY 2016

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

14

Criminal History Category as a result. The overwhelming majority 

of offenders whose Criminal History Category increased received 

an increase of only one category (87.3%).

Variation by Instant Offense

In fiscal year 2016, the four most common instant offenses 

of conviction26 were drug trafficking, immigration, firearms, and 

fraud. For this report, the Commission separately analyzed the 

prior convictions that received points in the criminal histories 

for these four groups of offenders.27 Firearms offenders were 

the most likely to have at least one scored conviction with a 

revocation. Additionally, they were the most likely to receive 

additional criminal history points. Firearms offenders were the 

only group in which over half of offenders had at least one scored 

conviction with a revocation. Drug trafficking offenders were the 

second most likely to have a scored conviction with a revocation, 

followed by fraud offenders. Immigration offenders were the least 

likely to have at least one scored conviction with a revocation. 

Firearms Offenders

Of the four groups of offenders compared in this report, 

firearms offenders were the only group in which a majority had at 

least one scored conviction with a revocation. Of the 573 firearms 

offenders, 54.3 percent had at least one scored conviction with a 

revocation. A total of 29.0 percent had one, 13.8 percent had 

two, and 11.5 percent had three or more scored convictions with 

a revocation.

Firearms offenders were the group of offenders most likely 

to receive additional criminal history points due to revocations. As 

seen in Table 5, two-thirds (66.2%) of the 311 firearms offenders 

with at least one scored conviction with a revocation received 

additional criminal history points due to the revocation(s). Onefifth (20.0%) received one additional point, and almost the 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

15

same share (21.0%) received two additional points. However, 

13.9 percent received three additional points, and 11.3 percent 

received four or more additional points. 

Although firearms offenders were the most likely to 

receive additional criminal history points, they were the least 

likely to have their Criminal History Category increase as a result. 

As shown in Figure 5, less than half (42.9%) of the 205 firearms 

offenders who received criminal history points due to revocations 

had a resulting increase in their Criminal History Category. 

Table 4. Distribution of Revocations

FY 2016, Firearms Offenders

Firearms Offenders in 

Revocation Study

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=573

No Revocations 45.7%

One Revocation 29.0%

Two Revocations 13.8%

Three or More Revocations 11.5%

Firearms Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=311

No Points 33.9%

One Point 20.0%

Two Points 21.0%

Three Points 13.9%

Four or More Points 11.3%

Table 5. Distribution of Points Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Firearms Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Figure 5. Revocations

FY 2016, Firearms Offenders

Offenders With

Revocations

(54.3%)

Offenders With Revocations

That Received Points

(66.1%)

Offenders With Revocations 

That Did Not Receive Points

(33.9%)

Offenders Without 

Revocations

(45.7%)

Offenders Whose CHC

Increased Due To Points

(42.9%)

Offenders Whose CHC 

Did Not Increase

(57.1%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

16

As reflected in Table 6, when revocations increased the 

Criminal History Category of firearms offenders, generally the 

increase was one Criminal History Category. For example, of the 

23 firearms offenders placed into CHC VI in part as a result of 

revocations, 73.9 percent received an increase of one of Criminal 

History Category, 21.7 percent received an increase of two 

Criminal History Categories, and 4.3 percent received an increase 

of three Criminal History Categories. This pattern applied across 

Criminal History Categories as revocations resulted in an increase 

of one category for 100 percent of offenders in CHC II, 83.3 

percent of offenders in CHC III, 91.7 percent of offenders in CHC 

IV, and 88.0 percent of offenders in CHC V. 

Drug Trafficking Offenders

Following the general trend, a minority of drug trafficking 

offenders had scored convictions with revocations. Of the 1,077 

drug trafficking offenders in the study, two-fifths (40.6%) had 

at least one scored conviction with a revocation. One-quarter 

(24.7%) had one, 9.7 percent had two, and 6.2 percent had three 

or more scored convictions with a revocation.

Table 6. Actual and Adjusted CHCs for Offenders Whose CHCs Moved Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Firearms Offenders

Actual CHC I

N=0

Actual CHC II

N=4

Actual CHC III

N=12

Actual CHC IV

N=24

Actual CHC V

N=25

Actual CHC VI

N=23

Adjusted CHC I 100.0% 16.7% 0 0 0

Adjusted CHC II 83.3% 8.3% 4.0% 0

Adjusted CHC III 91.7% 8.0% 4.3%

Adjusted CHC IV 88.0% 21.7%

Adjusted CHC V 73.9%

Adjusted CHC VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

17

The majority of drug trafficking offenders who had at 

least one scored conviction with a revocation received additional 

criminal history points. Of the 437 drug trafficking offenders 

with at least one scored conviction with a revocation, three-fifths 

(59.0%) received additional criminal history points. About an 

equal share received one additional point (18.8%) as received two 

additional points (17.2%). However, 13.5 percent received three 

points, and 9.5 percent received four or more additional points.

As shown in Figure 6, over half (53.1%) of the 258 drug 

trafficking offenders who received additional criminal history 

points due to revocations had a resulting increase in their Criminal 

History Category. 

Table 7. Distribution of Revocations

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

Drug Trafficking Offenders in 

Revocation Study

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=1,077

No Revocations 59.4%

One Revocation 24.7%

Two Revocations 9.7%

Three or More Revocations 6.2%

Drug Trafficking Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=437

No Points 41.0%

One Point 18.8%

Two Points 17.2%

Three Points 13.5%

Four or More Points 9.5%

Table 8. Distribution of Points Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Figure 6. Revocations

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

Offenders With

Revocations

(40.6%)

Offenders With Revocations

That Received Points

(59.0%)

Offenders With Revocations 

That Did Not Receive Points

(41.0%)

Offenders Without 

Revocations

(59.4%)

Offenders Whose CHC

Increased Due To Points

(53.1%)

Offenders Whose CHC 

Did Not Increase

(46.9%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

18

As reflected in Table 9, when revocations increased the 

Criminal History Category of drug trafficking offenders, generally 

the increase was one Criminal History Category. For example, of 

the 30 drug trafficking offenders in CHC VI in part as a result of 

revocations, 80.0 percent received an increase of one of Criminal 

History Category, 16.7 percent received an increase of two 

Criminal History Categories, and 3.3 percent received an increase 

of three Criminal History Categories. This pattern applied across 

Criminal History Categories as revocations resulted in an increase 

of one category for 100 percent of offenders in Criminal History 

Category II, 72.7 percent of offenders in Criminal History Category 

III, 86.5 percent of offenders in Criminal History Category IV, and 

93.8 percent of offenders in Criminal History Category V. 

Fraud Offenders

Following the general trend, a minority of fraud offenders 

had a scored conviction with a revocation. Of the 225 fraud 

offenders in the study, almost one-third (30.7%) had at least one 

scored conviction with a revocation. One-fifth (18.7%) of the 

fraud offenders had one, 4.9 percent had two, and 7.1 percent 

had three or more scored convictions with a revocation. 

Actual CHC I

N=0

Actual CHC II

N=16

Actual CHC III

N=22

Actual CHC IV

N=37

Actual CHC V

N=32

Actual CHC VI

N=30

Adjusted CHC I 100.0% 27.3% 2.7% 0 0

Adjusted CHC II 72.7% 10.8% 0 0

Adjusted CHC III 86.5% 6.3% 3.3%

Adjusted CHC IV 93.8% 16.7%

Adjusted CHC V 80.0%

Adjusted CHC VI

Table 9. Actual and Adjusted CHCs for Offenders Whose CHCs Moved Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

19

Of the 69 fraud offenders with at least one scored 

conviction with a revocation, 62.2 percent received additional 

criminal history points due to the revocation(s). One-quarter 

(24.6%) received one additional criminal history point, and 13.0 

percent received two additional criminal history points. However, 

15.9 percent received three additional points, and 8.7 percent 

received four or more additional points.

After firearms offenders, fraud offenders who received 

criminal history points due to revocations were the second least 

likely to have a resulting increase in Criminal History Category. 

The minority of fraud offenders (48.8%) who received additional 

criminal history points due to revocations had a resulting increase 

in Criminal History Category. 

Table 10. Distribution of Revocations

FY 2016, Fraud Offenders

Fraud Offenders in 

Revocation Study

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=225

No Revocations 69.3%

One Revocation 18.7%

Two Revocations 4.9%

Three or More Revocations 7.1%

Fraud Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=69

No Points 37.7%

One Point 24.6%

Two Points 13.0%

Three Points 15.9%

Four or More Points 8.7%

Table 11. Distribution of Points Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Fraud Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Figure 7. Revocations

FY 2016, Fraud Offenders

Offenders With

Revocations

(30.7%)

Offenders With Revocations

That Received Points

(62.3%)

Offenders With Revocations 

That Did Not Receive Points

(37.7%)

Offenders Without 

Revocations

(69.3%)

Offenders Whose CHC

Increased Due To Points

(48.8%)

Offenders Whose CHC 

Did Not Increase

(51.2%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

20

As reflected in Table 12, when revocations increased the 

Criminal History Category of fraud offenders, the substantial 

majority received an increase of one Criminal History Category. 

In fact, only one fraud offender with revocations that resulted in 

an increase in Criminal History Category received an increase of 

more than one Criminal History Category.

Immigration Offenders

Immigration offenders were the least likely type of 

offender to have at least one scored conviction with a revocation. 

Of the 1,315 immigration offenders in the study, one-fifth (20.9%) 

had at least one scored conviction with a revocation. A total of 

15.8 percent of immigration offenders had one, 3.6 percent had 

two, and 1.5 percent had three or more scored convictions with 

a revocation.

Despite the low percentage of immigration offenders 

who had at least one scored conviction with a revocation, those 

immigration offenders who did often received additional criminal 

history points. Of the 275 immigration offenders with at least 

one scored conviction with a revocation, just over half (55.9%) 

received additional criminal history points due to the revocation(s). 

Slightly less than one-quarter (23.5%) of these offenders received 

Table 12. Actual and Adjusted CHCs for Offenders Whose CHCs Moved Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Fraud Offenders

Actual CHC I

N=0

Actual CHC II

N=1

Actual CHC III

N=7

Actual CHC IV

N=4

Actual CHC V

N=7

Actual CHC VI

N=2

Adjusted CHC I 100.0% 14.3% 0 0 0

Adjusted CHC II 85.7% 0 0 0

Adjusted CHC III 100.0% 0 0

Adjusted CHC IV 100.0% 0

Adjusted CHC V 100.0%

Adjusted CHC VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

21

one additional point, and 13.6 percent received two additional 

points. However, 16.2 percent of immigration offenders with 

scored convictions with revocations received three additional 

points, and 2.6 percent received four or more additional points. 

When immigration offenders received additional criminal 

history points due to revocations, they often resulted in an 

increase in Criminal History Category. A majority (59.2%) of 

the 152 immigration offenders who received additional criminal 

history points due to revocations had a resulting increase in 

Criminal History Category. 

Table 13. Distribution of Revocations 

FY 2016, Immigration Offenders

Immigration Offenders in 

Revocation Study

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=1,315

No Revocations 79.1%

One Revocation 15.8%

Two Revocations 3.6%

Three or More Revocations 1.5%

Immigration Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=275

No Points 44.1%

One Point 23.5%

Two Points 13.6%

Three Points 16.2%

Four or More Points 2.6%

Table 14. Distribution of Points Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Immigration Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Figure 8. Revocations

FY 2016, Immigration Offenders

Offenders With

Revocations

(20.9%)

Offenders With Revocations

That Received Points

(55.9%)

Offenders With Revocations 

That Did Not Receive Points

(44.1%)

Offenders Without 

Revocations

(79.1%)

Offenders Whose CHC

Increased Due To Points

(59.2%)

Offenders Whose CHC 

Did Not Increase

(40.8%)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

22

As with offenders overall, the substantial majority (93.3%) 

of immigration offenders whose revocations increased their 

Criminal History Category received an increase of one Criminal 

History Category. As demonstrated by Table 15, of the 11 

firearms offenders in CHC VI in part because of revocations, 

72.7 percent received an increase of one of Criminal History 

Category, and 27.3 percent received an increase of two Criminal 

History Categories. This pattern applied across Criminal History 

Categories as revocations resulted in an increase of one category 

for 100 percent of immigration offenders in CHC II, 94.4 percent 

of offenders in CHC III, 93.9 percent of offenders in CHC IV, and 

100.0 percent of offenders in CHC V. 

Revived Convictions

As noted above, the Commission has received comment 

that revocations can effectively revive stale convictions, which in 

turn can impact an offender’s sentencing range in several ways. 

In addition to potentially adding criminal history points and 

thus increasing an offender’s Criminal History Category, revived 

convictions can also affect an offender’s eligibility for safety valve 

Table 15. Actual and Adjusted CHCs for Offenders Whose CHCs Moved Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Immigration Offenders

Actual CHC I

N=0

Actual CHC II

N=8

Actual CHC III

N=18

Actual CHC IV

N=33

Actual CHC V

N=20

Actual CHC VI

N=11

Adjusted CHC I 100.0% 5.6% 0 0 0

Adjusted CHC II 94.4% 6.1% 0 0

Adjusted CHC III 93.9% 0 0

Adjusted CHC IV 100.0% 27.3%

Adjusted CHC V 72.7%

Adjusted CHC VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

23

relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) or trigger the career offender 

enhancement at §4B1.1.28 The impact of revived convictions upon 

both safety valve relief and the career offender enhancement is 

explored below. 

How Often Are Stale Convictions Revived?

Of the 1,294 offenders with a scored conviction with a 

revocation, just under one-fifth (18.5%) had at least one scored 

conviction that would have been considered stale under the rules 

of Chapter Four of the guidelines except for a parole, supervised 

release, or probation revocation for that conviction (termed a 

“revived conviction” for this report). Of the 239 offenders with at 

least one revived conviction, the substantial majority (85.8%) had 

just one revived conviction. A total of 10.0 percent had two, and 

0.8 percent had three or more revived convictions. Ten offenders 

had five revived convictions, the most in this study. 

When considering the specific type of instant offense of 

conviction, fraud offenders were most likely to have had a revived 

conviction, but there was not substantial variation among the 

types of offenders. Among fraud offenders with at least one 

scored conviction with a revocation, 21.7 percent had at least 

one revived conviction, compared to 18.7 percent of firearms 

offenders, 17.4 percent of drug trafficking offenders, and 17.5 

percent of immigration offenders. 

Offenders With 

At Least One Revocation

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=1,294

No Revived Convictions 81.5%

One Revived Conviction 15.8%

Two Revived Convictions 1.9%

Three or More Revived Convictions 0.8%

Table 16. Distribution of Revived Convictions

FY 2016

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

24

Impact of Revocations on Safety Valve Eligibility

As discussed in several Commission publications, 

mandatory minimum penalties can have a significant impact on 

an offender’s sentence.29 Of equal impact on sentence length is 

whether an offender convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory 

minimum receives relief through one of two statutorily available 

mechanisms.30 One such statutory relief provision, applicable to 

drug trafficking offenders, is the statutory safety valve provision 

at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). 

Background

The congressionally enacted safety valve provision 

requires courts to sentence drug offenders without respect to any 

otherwise applicable statutory mandatory minimum if five criteria 

are met. The first of the five criteria, and the only one relevant 

to this study, is that the defendant must not have more than one 

criminal history point as determined under the guidelines.31

The guidelines incorporate the statutory safety valve 

provision at §5C1.2.32 Safety valve relief, which is only available 

to drug trafficking offenders, is one of the two ways33 certain 

drug offenders can be sentenced below an otherwise applicable 

mandatory minimum penalty. Additionally, drug offenders who 

meet the requirements of the statutory safety valve receive a 

two-level decrease in their guideline calculation under §2D1.1, 

regardless of whether the offender was convicted of a statute 

carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.34 Thus, application of the 

safety valve often results in a significantly reduced sentence.

Some commenters have hypothesized that the inclusion 

of revocations in the criminal history calculation, particularly the 

ability of revocations to revive otherwise stale convictions, has 

an adverse effect on offenders’ eligibility for the statutory safety 

valve. As previously noted, revocations can impact the criminal 

history score in two ways. First, and most commonly, a revocation 

can increase the number of criminal history points a prior offense 

receives. For example, a revocation could increase a one-point 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

25

offense to two or three points, and thereby disqualify an offender 

from safety valve relief. Second, it can revive a stale conviction, 

potentially adding points and disqualifying an offender from 

safety valve relief. 

In light of the interest in the area, the Commission studied 

how often a revocation ultimately rendered an otherwise qualified 

offender ineligible for the safety valve. To isolate the impact 

of revocations, this study focuses solely on the first statutory 

criterion, which requires that the defendant not have more than 

one criminal history point. 

Analysis

As noted, only drug trafficking offenders are eligible for 

the statutory safety valve. As such, the Commission analyzed the 

19,222 drug trafficking offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2016 

for this portion of the publication. Of the 19,222 drug trafficking 

offenders, 8,746 (45.5%) were convicted of a drug statute carrying 

a mandatory minimum penalty, 6,102 (69.9%) of whom did not 

receive safety valve relief. 

To isolate the impact of the criminal history score on 

safety valve eligibility, the Commission next examined how many 

of the 6,102 offenders who did not receive safety valve relief were 

disqualified for eligibility based solely on their criminal history 

score, i.e., they had more than one criminal history point but 

otherwise would be considered for safety valve relief.35 Because 

the data available to the Commission does not allow for an exact 

determination of the offenders who would be otherwise eligible 

for safety valve relief, the Commission used the following criteria 

to eliminate offenders who would likely have been disqualified for 

safety valve based on a factor other than criminal history score: (1) 

had a conviction for an 18 U.S.C. §924(c) or 21 U.S.C. §848 offense; 

(2) received an enhancement for using violence or credible threats 

of violence under §2D1.1(b)(2); (3) received an adjustment under 

§3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) or §3C1.1 (Obstruction of Justice); 

or (4) did not receive a reduction under §3E1.1 (Acceptance of 

Responsibility). By using the preceding criteria as proxies for the 

safety valve eligibility requirements, the Commission narrowed 
United States Sentencing Commission

26

the pool of eligible defendants who may be considered for safety 

valve relief. For example, the Commission cannot state with 

certainty whether a given offender would have truthfully provided 

to the Government all information and evidence the offender has 

concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same 

course of conduct or common scheme or plan. However, the 

Commission uses the acceptance of responsibility adjustment as a 

proxy for the defendant providing to the Government all relevant 

information. Lastly, the Commission limited the study to those 

offenders who had a criminal history score between two and six 

points, as offenders exceeding that point range would have been 

unlikely to qualify even in the absence of a revocation. 

As reflected in Figure 9, 1,457 offenders had a criminal 

history score between two and six points but otherwise would be 

considered for safety valve relief. The Commission examined a 50 

percent sample of these 1,457 offenders.

Figure 9. Eligibility for Statutory Safety Valve

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

Ineligible Due to CH Score 2 to 6 Points

1,457

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

27

As reflected in Figure 10, only 2.3 percent of drug 

trafficking offenders in the study were rendered ineligible for 

safety valve due to scored convictions with revocations. 

A total of 0.8 percent of the drug trafficking offenders 

studied were ineligible at least in part36 due to revocations for new 

criminal conduct. The remaining 1.5 percent of drug trafficking 

offenders who were ineligible did not have known criminal conduct 

as the reasons for their revocations. Ten offenders (1.4%) were 

ineligible at least in part due to revocations for unknown reasons, 

and 0.1 percent were ineligible only due to technical revocations.

Figure 10. Impact of Revocations on Statutory Safety Valve

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

Ineligible Due to Revocations

2.3%

Ineligible Regardless of 

Revocations

97.7%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Offenders Ineligible for Safety Valve 

Due to Revocations

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=17

Ineligible due to 

criminal revocations

0.8%

(6 offenders)

Ineligible due to 

technical and unknown reason revocations

1.4%

(10 offenders)

Ineligible only due to 

technical revocations

0.1%

(1 offender)

Table 17. Offenders Ineligible for Safety Valve Due to Revocations

FY 2016, Drug Trafficking Offenders

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

28

Impact of Revocations on Career Offender Status

Background

Some commenters have expressed concern that 

revocations can qualify offenders for the career offender 

sentencing enhancement at §4B1.1. Pursuant to a statutory 

directive at 28 U.S.C. § 994(h),37 the Commission promulgated 

§4B1.1 to ensure that certain repeat drug traffickers and repeat 

violent offenders are sentenced “at or near the maximum [term 

of imprisonment] authorized.” When applied, the sentencing 

enhancement at §4B1.1 typically results in a guidelines range 

significantly greater than would otherwise apply. 

The career offender guideline accomplishes this increase 

through two potential adjustments to the otherwise applicable 

guidelines calculations. First, it provides for a potentially 

increased final offense level for the offender’s instant offense. 

A table at §4B1.1(b) provides a range of applicable final offense 

levels based on the statutory maximum penalties for an offender’s 

instant federal statute of conviction that apply if the offense level 

is otherwise lower. Second, §4B1.1(b) also assigns all career 

offenders to Criminal History Category VI, regardless of their 

otherwise applicable Criminal History Category. 

Revocations can qualify otherwise ineligible offenders for 

the career offender enhancement. This occurs when an otherwise 

stale conviction is revived, and then serves as a predicate 

conviction for a crime of violence38 or controlled substance 

offense.39 In order for the career offender enhancement to apply, 

an offender must have at least two prior felony convictions for 

a crime of violence or a controlled substance offence that are 

scored separately under §4BA1.1.40 Because the predicates 

need to be scored separately, a stale offense, which is not scored, 

cannot serve as a predicate conviction. Once revived through 

a revocation, however, the previously stale conviction is scored, 

and may count as a predicate. 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

29

Analysis

The Commission examined a fifty percent sample of fiscal 

year 2016 career offenders to determine the impact of revocations 

on qualifying for the career offender enhancement. Of the 

912 career offenders studied, 10.7 percent qualified as career 

offenders in part due to scored convictions with revocations. 

A total of 5.9 percent of career offenders studied qualified 

at least in part due to revocations for new criminal conduct. The 

remaining 4.8 percent of career offenders studied who qualified 

for the career offender enhancement in part due to revocations 

did not have new criminal conduct as the reasons for their 

revocations. A total of 3.5 percent qualified at least in part due 

to revocations for unknown reasons, and 1.3 percent qualified in 

part due to technical revocations.

Figure 11. Impact of Revocations on Career Offender Status

FY 2016

Qualified Due to Revocations

10.7%

Qualified Regardless of 

Revocations

89.3%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.

Offenders Qualified for Career Offender

Due to Revocations

TOTAL OFFENDERS N=98

Qualified due to 

criminal revocations

5.9% 

(54 offenders)

Qualified due to

technical and unknown reason revocations

3.5%

(32 offenders)

Qualified only due to 

technical revocations

1.3%

(12 offenders)

Table 18. Qualified for Career Offender Due to Revocations

FY 2016

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s FY 2016 Revocations Datafile.

Cases missing information necessary for analysis were excluded from that analysis.
United States Sentencing Commission

30

Conclusion

 Revocations affected a minority of offenders in the 

study, with only 35.0 percent having a scored conviction with a 

revocation. However, among those offenders who did have a 

scored conviction with a revocation, three-fifths (60.2%) received 

additional criminal history points, and just under a third (30.9%) 

of those offenders saw an increase in their Criminal History 

Category. For those that had their Criminal History Category 

increased due to the scored conviction with a revocation, the 

increase was generally limited to one Category. 

The Commission cannot state with certainty how often 

revocations are based on new crimes versus technical violations 

because the underlying basis for the revocation could not be 

determined in 38.7 percent of the cases studied. However, the 

available data demonstrates that between 38.9 percent and 77.5 

percent of the revocations studied were for new crimes, and 

between 22.5 and 61.1 percent were for technical violations.

Prior revocations did not significantly limit offender 

eligibility for the statutory safety valve. Of the drug trafficking 

offenders studied, only 2.3 percent appear to be ineligible for the 

safety valve based solely on scored convictions with revocations. 

However, prior revocations had a more significant impact on 

offenders who received the career offender enhancement at 

§4B1.1. Of the career offenders studied, 10.7 percent qualified 

for the career offender enhancement in part because of scored 

convictions with revocations.
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

31

Endnotes

1 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). 

2 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Criminal History of Federal Offenders

(2018) available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-andpublications/research-publications/2018/20180517_criminal-history.pdf.

3 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §§4A1.2(e) & 

4A1.2(k) (Nov. 2016) [hereinafter USSG].

4 28 U.S.C. § 994 contains the duties of the Commission, as well as 

directives from Congress. Section 994(d)(10) instructs the Commission to 

consider the history of the defendant in sentencing. 

5 USSG, Ch. 4, Pt. A, intro. comment.

6 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n., The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History

and Recidivism of Federal Offenders 7 (2017) [hereinafter Past Predicts the

Future], available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-andpublications/research-publications/2017/20170309_Recidivism-Ch.pdf.

7 USSG §4A1.1

8 USSG §4A1.2(k). This section has been amended three times: in 1991, 

2010, and 2011. Only Amendment 381 in 1991 is relevant to this paper’s focus. 

See infra note 9. Amendment 742 eliminated language that had existed since 

1987 regarding the recency of an individual’s last release from confinement. Prior 

to this amendment, §4A1.2(e) provided that one or two points were added to the 

criminal history score if the defendant committed the instant offense less than 

two years after release from imprisonment. This amendment not only eliminated 

the recency points from §4A1.2(e), but also eliminated the consideration of the 

recency of revocations of probation, parole, supervised release, special parole, or 

mandatory release. USSG App. C. amend. 742 (eff. Nov. 1, 2010). Amendment 

758 only made stylistic changes to conform how subdivisions are designated 

throughout the Guidelines Manual. USSG App. C, amend. 758 (eff. Nov. 1, 2011).

9 Common ways of violating the conditions of supervised release include 

failing a drug test, failure to report as directed, or being arrested, charged, or 

convicted of a new crime. 

10 Amendment 381 clarified how to treat revocations of multiple 

sentences by adding Application Note 11. See USSG App. C. amend. 381 (eff. 

Nov. 1, 1991). Where a revocation applies to multiple sentences, the court adds 

the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation only to the sentence that 

will result in the most criminal history points. Additionally, this amendment 

added a new subsection (B), which clarified that “revocation[s] of probation, 

parole, supervised release, special parole, or mandatory release may affect the 

time period under which certain sentences are counted as provided in §4A1.2(d)

(2) and (e).” It also provided the applicable time periods: (1) for a term of 

imprisonment totaling more than one year and one month, use the date of last 

release from incarceration; (2) in the case of any other confinement sentence 

for an offense committed prior to the defendant’s eighteenth birthday, the date 
United States Sentencing Commission

32

of the defendant’s last release from confinement, and (3) in any other case, the 

date of the original sentence. This language exists in the current guideline today.

USSG §4A1.2(k)(2). 

11 A Criminal History Category is a grouping of numerical values with a 

range of two or three points. Therefore, not all increases in points will result in an 

increase of Criminal History Category. For example, Criminal History Category III 

is comprised of offenders who receive four, five, or six points. USSG Ch. 5, Pt. D, 

Sentencing Table. If a defendant originally received four points, and one point is 

added due to the counting of a revocation, the resulting score would not change 

the defendant’s Criminal History Category. 

12 See Past Predicts the Future, supra note 6, at 7.

13 USSG §4A1.2(e).

14 The Career Offender guideline, §4B1.1, provides enhanced offense 

levels when a defendant (1) was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant 

offense; (2) the instant offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a 

controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony 

convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. 

USSG §4B1.1(a).

15 Section 2K2.1(a) provides for a range of base offense levels. The base 

offense levels are increased if the defendant has certain prior convictions. For 

example, if a defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent 

to sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of violence or a controlled 

substance offense, the base offense level is a 20. USSG §2K2.1 (a)(4). If the 

defendant has two such convictions, the base offense level is 24. USSG §2K2.1 

(a)(2). Application Note 10 of §2K2.1 provides that only scored convictions 

can be used to enhance the base offense level. Revived convictions, which are 

scored, can serve as predicate convictions, and thus enhance a defendant’s base 

offense level under §2K2.1. 

16 Section 2L1.2(b) works in a similar fashion to §2K2.1, except that it 

enhances the base offense level through “Specific Offense Characteristics.” The 

guideline provides that levels are added depending on a defendant’s type(s) 

of prior offenses and the sentence(s) imposed. Application Note 3 of §2L1.2 

provides that only scored convictions can be used to apply the Specific Offense 

Characteristics. This means that revived conviction may be used to enhance the 

base offense level, but stale convictions may not. 

17 Section 3553(f) of title 18 is commonly known as “the statutory safety 

valve.” It requires a sentencing court to impose a sentence without regard to any 

statutory minimum if: “(1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal 

history point; (2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence 

or possess a firearm or other danger weapon (or induce another participant to 

do so) in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not result in death 

or serious bodily injury to any person; (4) the defendant was not an organizer 

leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the 

sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise; 

and (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has 

truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the 

defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same 
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

33

course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). These 

provisions are integrated into the guidelines at USSG §5C1.2.

18 Individuals who receive the statutory safety valve may be sentenced 

below the applicable statutory mandatory minimum penalty, and receive a 

reduction of two levels under USSG §2D1.1(b)(17) or §2D1.11(b)(6). This often 

results in shorter guidelines ranges and shorter sentences.

19 Additionally, the Commission only examined cases that had complete 

documentation of their cases.

20 “Conviction” includes criminal convictions, juvenile adjudications, and 

diversionary or deferred dispositions resulting from a finding or admission of 

guilt or a plea of nolo contendere.

21 See, e.g., United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 109 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(defining “technical violations” as “charges not related to the commission of state 

offenses.”). 

22 See, e.g., James L. Johnson & Laura M. Baber, State of the System: Federal 

Probation and Pretrial Services, Fed. Probation, September 2015, at 34, 35 (citing 

failed drug testing as a technical violation); Sam Torres, A Continuum of Sanctions 

for Substance-Abusing Offenders, Fed. Probation, December 1998, at 36, 38 

(same). 

23 See, e.g., United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1153 (7th Cir. 2001); 

United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833, 836-37 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. 

Clark, 30 F.3d 23, 25 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Dow, 990 F.2d 22, 24 (1st 

Cir. 1993); United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993); United 

States v. Courtney, 979 F.2d 45, 49 (5th Cir. 1992). 

24 As noted above, the Commission was unable to determine the cause 

of the revocation in 38.7 percent of violations. While the Commission could not 

determine the reason for revocations for this subset, some or all of the unknown 

violations may have been technical violations. 

25 For the 2018-19 Amendment Cycle, the Commission adopted priority 

7A, which identifies as a priority the “[s]tudy of Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal 

History), focusing on (A) how the guidelines treat revocations under §4A1.2(k) 

for conduct constituting a violation of a condition of supervision that does not 

result in the arrest, criminal charge, or conviction for a federal, state, or local 

offense punishable by a term of imprisonment (other than the arrest for the 

violation of the condition of supervision itself)...” See 83 FR 43956-57, (Aug. 28, 

2018). 

26 The Commission uses the term “instant offense” to refer to the federal 

conviction for which an offender is sentenced. 

27 Drug offenses were limited to drug trafficking offenses, rather than all 

drug offenses. 

28 Although not analyzed in this study, revived convictions can also serve 

as the basis for enhancements under §2K2.1 (Unlawful Receipt, Possession or 

Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving 
United States Sentencing Commission

34

Firearms or Ammunition) and §2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the 

United States).

29 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, An Overview of Mandatory Minimum

Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System 6 (2017), available at https://

www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2017/20170711_Mand-Min.pdf.

30 Id. at 43-44.

31 The other criteria are that the defendant did not use violence or credible 

threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce 

another participant to do so) in connection with the offense; the offense did not 

result in death or serious bodily injury to any person; the defendant was not an 

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined 

under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal 

enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and

not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully 

provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has 

concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct 

or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant 

or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware 

of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the 

defendant has complied with this requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

32 USSG §5C1.2.

33 The other way individuals may obtain relief from a statutory mandatory 

minimum is a substantial assistance motion under either 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) or 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). 

34 USSG §2D1.1(b)(17). 

35 As determined by analyses of a ten percent sample, only ten offenders 

out of all 36,960 with seven or more points would be in Criminal History 

Category I absent revocations in their criminal histories. Therefore, the upper 

boundary for inclusion in this study was limited to six points. 

36 In addition to revocations for criminal conduct, offenders in this group 

may have also had other revocations for technical or unknown reasons.

37 The directive provides: “[t]he Commission shall assure that 

the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the 

maximum term authorized for categories of defendants in which the defendant 

is eighteen years old or older and—(1) has been convicted of a felony that 

is—(A) a crime of violence; or (B) an offense described in section 401 of the 

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 841), sections 1002(a), 1005, and 1009 

of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 955, 

and 959), and chapter 705 of title 46; and (2) has previously been convicted 

of two or more prior felonies, each of which is—(A) a crime of violence; or 

(B) an offense described in section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act 

(21 U.S.C. § 841), sections 1002(a), 1005, and 1009 of the Controlled Substances 

Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 955, and 959), and chapter 705 of 

title 46.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(h).
Revocations Among Federal Offenders 

35

38 “Crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state law, 

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that (1) has as an 

element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against 

the person of another, or (2) is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, 

aggravated assault, a forcible sex offenses, robbery, arson, extortion or the use 

or unlawful possession of a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive 

material as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 841(c). See USSG §4B1.2(a).

39 The term “controlled substance offense” means an offense under 

federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, 

that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution or dispensing of a 

controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, 

import, export, distribute, or dispense. See USSG §4B1.2(b). 

40 USSG §4B1.2(c).