Source: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archive/2007-chap3
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:41:25
Document Index: 562355755

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§1', '§3', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§1', '§2', '§5', '§3', '§ 2332', '§ 2339', '§ 2339', '§ 2332', '§ 2332', '§1', '§1', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§1', '§1', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§ 1028', '§ 1002', '§ 501', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§ 1510', '§ 853', '§3', '§3', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§ 3146', '§ 1621', '§3', '§1', '§3', '§3', '§ 3147', '§ 3147', '§ 3147', '§ 3147', '§\n3147', '§3', '§ 3559', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§2', '§3', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§3']

2007 CHAP3 | United States Sentencing Commission
2007 CHAP3
CHAPTER THREE - ADJUSTMENTSPART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTSIntroductory CommentaryThe following adjustments are included in this Part because they
may apply to a wide variety of offenses. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 344).§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of
any victim or any property as the object of the offense of
conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual
orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.(b) (1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of
the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels. (2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a
large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level
determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.
1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note
that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of
Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of
a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account
by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from
2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a
person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any
conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3
(Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age,
physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly
susceptible to the criminal conduct.
Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually
vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known
of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply,
for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an
ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant
selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in
which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the
general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually
vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a
bank. Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a
vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For
example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the
age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the
victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age. 3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied
cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in
which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was
unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color,
4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the
defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an
offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an
Background: Subsection (a) reflects the directive to the
Commission, contained in Section 280003 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to provide an enhancement
of not less than three levels for an offense when the finder of
fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant had a hate crime motivation (i.e., a primary motivation
for the offense was the race, color, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of the
victim). To avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity based on the
method of conviction, the Commission has broadened the application
of this enhancement to include offenses that, in the case of a plea
of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines
are hate crimes.Subsection (b)(2) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to
the Commission in section 6(c)(3) of Public Law 105-184.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendment 245); November 1, 1990
(see Appendix C, amendment 344); November 1, 1992 (see Appendix C,
amendment 454); November 1, 1995 (see Appendix C, amendment 521);
November 1, 1997 (see Appendix C, amendment 564); November 1, 1998
(see Appendix C, amendment 587); November 1, 2000 (see Appendix C,
amendment 595).§3A1.2. Official Victim(Apply the greatest):(a) If (1) the victim was (A) a government officer or employee; (B)
a former government officer or employee; or (C) a member of the
immediate family of a person described in subdivision (A) or (B);
and (2) the offense of conviction was motivated by such status,
increase by 3 levels.(b) If subsection (a)(1) and (2) apply, and the applicable Chapter
Two guideline is from Chapter Two, Part A (Offenses Against the
Person), increase by 6 levels. (c) If, in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily
injury, the defendant or a person for whose conduct the defendant
is otherwise accountable—
(1) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a person
was a law enforcement officer, assaulted such officer during the
course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom; or (2) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a person
was a prison official, assaulted such official while the defendant
(or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise
accountable) was in the custody or control of a prison or other
correctional facility, increase by 6 levels.CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. Applicability to Certain Victims.—This guideline applies when
specified individuals are victims of the offense. This guideline
does not apply when the only victim is an organization, agency, or
2. Nonapplicability in Case of Incorporation of Factor in Chapter
Two.—Do not apply this adjustment if the offense guideline
specifically incorporates this factor. The only offense guideline
in Chapter Two that specifically incorporates this factor is §2A2.4
(Obstructing or Impeding Officers).
3. Application of Subsections (a) and (b).—"Motivated by such
status", for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), means that the
offense of conviction was motivated by the fact that the victim was
a government officer or employee, or a member of the immediate
family thereof. This adjustment would not apply, for example,
where both the defendant and victim were employed by the same
government agency and the offense was motivated by a personal
dispute. This adjustment also would not apply in the case of a
robbery of a postal employee because the offense guideline for
robbery contains an enhancement (§2B3.1(a)) that takes such conduct
(A) In General.—Subsection (c) applies in circumstances tantamount
to aggravated assault (i) against a law enforcement officer,
committed in the course of, or in immediate flight following,
another offense; or (ii) against a prison official, while the
defendant (or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise
correctional facility. While subsection (c) may apply in
connection with a variety of offenses that are not by nature
targeted against official victims, its applicability is limited to
assaultive conduct against such official victims that is
sufficiently serious to create at least a "substantial risk of
"Custody or control" includes "non-secure custody", i.e., custody
with no significant physical restraint. For example, a defendant
is in the custody or control of a prison or other correctional
facility if the defendant (i) is on a work detail outside the
security perimeter of the prison or correctional facility; (ii) is
physically away from the prison or correctional facility while on
a pass or furlough; or (iii) is in custody at a community
corrections center, community treatment center, "halfway house", or
similar facility. The defendant also shall be deemed to be in the
custody or control of a prison or other correctional facility while
the defendant is in the status of having escaped from that prison
or correctional facility.
"Prison official" means any individual (including a director,
officer, employee, independent contractor, or volunteer, but not
including an inmate) authorized to act on behalf of a prison or
correctional facility. For example, this enhancement would be
applicable to any of the following: (i) an individual employed by
a prison as a corrections officer; (ii) an individual employed by
a prison as a work detail supervisor; and (iii) a nurse who, under
contract, provides medical services to prisoners in a prison health
"Substantial risk of serious bodily injury" includes any more
serious injury that was risked, as well as actual serious bodily
injury (or more serious injury) if it occurs.
5. Upward Departure Provision.—If the official victim is an
exceptionally high-level official, such as the President or the
Vice President of the United States, an upward departure may be
warranted due to the potential disruption of the governmental
January 15, 1988 (see Appendix C, amendment 44); November 1, 1989
(see Appendix C, amendments 246-248); November 1, 1992 (see
Appendix C, amendment 455); November 1, 2002 (see Appendix C,
amendment 643); November 1, 2004 (see Appendix C, amendment 663).§3A1.3. Restraint of VictimIf a victim was physically restrained in the course of the offense,
increase by 2 levels.CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. "Physically restrained" is defined in the Commentary to §1B1.1
2. Do not apply this adjustment where the offense guideline
specifically incorporates this factor, or where the unlawful
restraint of a victim is an element of the offense itself (e.g.,
this adjustment does not apply to offenses covered by §2A4.1
(Kidnapping, Abduction, Unlawful Restraint)).
3. If the restraint was sufficiently egregious, an upward departure
may be warranted. See §5K2.4 (Abduction or Unlawful Restraint).
November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendments 249 and 250);
November 1, 1991 (see Appendix C, amendment 413).§3A1.4. Terrorism(a) If the offense is a felony that involved, or was intended to
promote, a federal crime of terrorism, increase by 12 levels; but
if the resulting offense level is less than level 32, increase to
level 32.(b) In each such case, the defendant’s criminal history category
from Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) shall
be Category VI.CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. "Federal Crime of Terrorism" Defined.—For purposes of this
guideline, "federal crime of terrorism" has the meaning given that
term in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5).
2. Harboring, Concealing, and Obstruction Offenses.—For purposes of
this guideline, an offense that involved (A) harboring or
concealing a terrorist who committed a federal crime of terrorism
(such as an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2339 or § 2339A); or (B)
obstructing an investigation of a federal crime of terrorism, shall
be considered to have involved, or to have been intended to
promote, that federal crime of terrorism.
3. Computation of Criminal History Category.— Under subsection
(b), if the defendant’s criminal history category as determined
under Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) is
less than Category VI, it shall be increased to Category VI.
4. Upward Departure Provision.—By the terms of the directive to the
Commission in section 730 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, the adjustment provided by this guideline
applies only to federal crimes of terrorism. However, there may be
cases in which (A) the offense was calculated to influence or
affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to
retaliate against government conduct but the offense involved, or
was intended to promote, an offense other than one of the offenses
specifically enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B); or (B) the
offense involved, or was intended to promote, one of the offenses
specifically enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), but the
terrorist motive was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, rather than to
influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct. In such
cases an upward departure would be warranted, except that the
sentence resulting from such a departure may not exceed the top of
the guideline range that would have resulted if the adjustment
under this guideline had been applied.
amendment 526). Amended effective November 1, 1996 (see Appendix
C, amendment 539); November 1, 1997 (see Appendix C, amendment
565); November 1, 2002 (see Appendix C, amendment 637). PART B - ROLE IN THE OFFENSEIntroductory CommentaryThis Part provides adjustments to the offense level based upon the
role the defendant played in committing the offense. The
determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is to be made on
the basis of all conduct within the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant
Conduct), i.e., all conduct included under §1B1.3(a)(1)-(4), and
not solely on the basis of elements and acts cited in the count of
conviction. When an offense is committed by more than one participant, §3B1.1
or §3B1.2 (or neither) may apply. Section 3B1.3 may apply to
offenses committed by any number of participants. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 345); November 1, 1992
(see Appendix C, amendment 456).§3B1.1. Aggravating RoleBased on the defendant’s role in the offense, increase the offense
(see Appendix C, amendment 500).§3B1.2. Mitigating RoleBased on the defendant’s role in the offense, decrease the offense
(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal
activity, decrease by 4 levels.
(b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal
activity, decrease by 2 levels.
In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels.CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. Definition.—For purposes of this guideline, "participant" has
the meaning given that term in Application Note 1 of §3B1.1
2. Requirement of Multiple Participants.—This guideline is not
applicable unless more than one participant was involved in the
offense. See the Introductory Commentary to this Part (Role in the
Offense). Accordingly, an adjustment under this guideline may not
apply to a defendant who is the only defendant convicted of an
offense unless that offense involved other participants in addition
to the defendant and the defendant otherwise qualifies for such an
adjustment. 3. Applicability of Adjustment.—
(A) Substantially Less Culpable than Average Participant.—This
section provides a range of adjustments for a defendant who plays
a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less
culpable than the average participant. A defendant who is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) only
for the conduct in which the defendant personally was involved and
who performs a limited function in concerted criminal activity is
not precluded from consideration for an adjustment under this
guideline. For example, a defendant who is convicted of a drug
trafficking offense, whose role in that offense was limited to
transporting or storing drugs and who is accountable under §1B1.3
only for the quantity of drugs the defendant personally transported
or stored is not precluded from consideration for an adjustment
under this guideline.
(B) Conviction of Significantly Less Serious Offense.—If a
defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being
convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted
by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role
under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such
defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose
only conduct involved the less serious offense. For example, if a
defendant whose actual conduct involved a minimal role in the
distribution of 25 grams of cocaine (an offense having a Chapter
Two offense level of level 14 under §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing,
Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy)) is
convicted of simple possession of cocaine (an offense having a
Chapter Two offense level of level 6 under §2D2.1 (Unlawful
Possession; Attempt or Conspiracy)), no reduction for a mitigating
role is warranted because the defendant is not substantially less
culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the simple
subsection (a) or subsection (b), or an intermediate adjustment,
involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts
of the particular case. As with any other factual issue, the
court, in weighing the totality of the circumstances, is not
required to find, based solely on the defendant’s bare assertion,
that such a role adjustment is warranted.
4. Minimal Participant.—Subsection (a) applies to a defendant
described in Application Note 3(A) who plays a minimal role in
concerted activity. It is intended to cover defendants who are
plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct
of a group. Under this provision, the defendant’s lack of
knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the
enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role
as minimal participant. It is intended that the downward
adjustment for a minimal participant will be used infrequently. 5. Minor Participant.— Subsection (b) applies to a defendant
described in Application Note 3(A) who is less culpable than most
other participants, but whose role could not be described as
minimal. 6. Application of Role Adjustment in Certain Drug Cases.—In a case
in which the court applied §2D1.1 and the defendant’s base offense
level under that guideline was reduced by operation of the maximum
base offense level in §2D1.1(a)(3), the court also shall apply the
appropriate adjustment under this guideline.
November 1, 1992 (see Appendix C, amendment 456); November 1, 2001
(see Appendix C, amendment 635); November 1, 2002 (see Appendix C,
amendment 640).§3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special SkillIf the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or
used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated
the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels. This adjustment may not be employed if an abuse of trust or skill
is included in the base offense level or specific offense
characteristic. If this adjustment is based upon an abuse of a
position of trust, it may be employed in addition to an adjustment
under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role); if this adjustment is based solely
on the use of a special skill, it may not be employed in addition
to an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role).CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. Definition of "Public or Private Trust".—"Public or private
trust" refers to a position of public or private trust
characterized by professional or managerial discretion (i.e.,
substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given
considerable deference). Persons holding such positions ordinarily
are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose
responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. For
this adjustment to apply, the position of public or private trust
must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the
commission or concealment of the offense (e.g., by making the
detection of the offense or the defendant’s responsibility for the
offense more difficult). This adjustment, for example, applies in
the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney
serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme,
or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the
guise of an examination. This adjustment does not apply in the
case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or
hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the
above-described factors.
2. Application of Adjustment in Certain
Circumstances.—Notwithstanding Application Note 1, or any other
provision of this guideline, an adjustment under this guideline
shall apply to the following:
(A) An employee of the United States Postal Service who engages in
the theft or destruction of undelivered United States mail.
(B) A defendant who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her
position in order to obtain unlawfully, or use without authority,
any means of identification. "Means of identification" has the
meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7). The following
are examples to which this subdivision would apply: (i) an employee
of a state motor vehicle department who exceeds or abuses the
authority of his or her position by knowingly issuing a driver’s
license based on false, incomplete, or misleading information; (ii)
a hospital orderly who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or
her position by obtaining or misusing patient identification
information from a patient chart; and (iii) a volunteer at a
charitable organization who exceeds or abuses the authority of his
or her position by obtaining or misusing identification
information from a donor’s file.
3. This adjustment also applies in a case in which the defendant
provides sufficient indicia to the victim that the defendant
legitimately holds a position of private or public trust when, in
fact, the defendant does not. For example, the adjustment applies
in the case of a defendant who (A) perpetrates a financial fraud by
leading an investor to believe the defendant is a legitimate investment broker; or (B) perpetrates a fraud by representing
falsely to a patient or employer that the defendant is a licensed
physician. In making the misrepresentation, the defendant assumes
a position of trust, relative to the victim, that provides the
defendant with the same opportunity to commit a difficult-to-detect
crime that the defendant would have had if the position were held
4. "Special skill" refers to a skill not possessed by members of
the general public and usually requiring substantial education,
training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers,
doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.
5. The following additional illustrations of an abuse of a position
of trust pertain to theft or embezzlement from employee pension or
welfare benefit plans or labor unions:
(A) If the offense involved theft or embezzlement from an employee
pension or welfare benefit plan and the defendant was a fiduciary
of the benefit plan, an adjustment under this section for abuse of
a position of trust will apply. "Fiduciary of the benefit plan" is
defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) to mean a person who exercises
any discretionary authority or control in respect to the management
of such plan or exercises authority or control in respect to
management or disposition of its assets, or who renders investment
advice for a fee or other direct or indirect compensation with
respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any
authority or responsibility to do so, or who has any discretionary
authority or responsibility in the administration of such plan.
(B) If the offense involved theft or embezzlement from a labor
union and the defendant was a union officer or occupied a position
of trust in the union (as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 501(a)), an
adjustment under this section for an abuse of a position of trust
Background: This adjustment applies to persons who abuse their
positions of trust or their special skills to facilitate
significantly the commission or concealment of a crime. The
adjustment also applies to persons who provide sufficient indicia
to the victim that they legitimately hold a position of public or
private trust when, in fact, they do not. Such persons generally
are viewed as more culpable. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 346); November 1, 1993
(see Appendix C, amendment 492); November 1, 1998 (see Appendix C,
amendment 580); November 1, 2001 (see Appendix C, amendment 617);
November 1, 2005 (see Appendix C, amendment 677).§3B1.4. Using a Minor To Commit a CrimeIf the defendant used or attempted to use a person less than
eighteen years of age to commit the offense or assist in avoiding
detection of, or apprehension for, the offense, increase by 2
levels.CommentaryApplication Notes:
1. "Used or attempted to use" includes directing, commanding,
encouraging, intimidating, counseling, training, procuring,
recruiting, or soliciting.
2. Do not apply this adjustment if the Chapter Two offense
guideline incorporates this factor.
3. If the defendant used or attempted to use more than one person
less than eighteen years of age, an upward departure may be
amendment 527). Amended effective November 1, 1996 (see Appendix
C, amendment 540). A former §3B1.4 (untitled), effective November
amendment 303), was deleted effective November 1, 1995 (see
Appendix C, amendment 527).§3B1.5. Use of Body Armor in Drug Trafficking Crimes and Crimes of
(A) the offense involved the use of body armor, increase by 2
levels; or
C, amendment 670).PART C - OBSTRUCTION AND RELATED ADJUSTMENTSHistorical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 2006 (see Appendix C, amendment 684). §3C1.1. Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of JusticeIf (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted
to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect
to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant
offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to
or (ii) a closely related offense, increase the offense level by 2
1. In General.—This adjustment applies if the defendant’s
obstructive conduct (A) occurred with respect to the
investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the defendant’s
instant offense of conviction, and (B) related to (i) the
defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (ii)
an otherwise closely related case, such as that of a co-defendant.
Obstructive conduct that occurred prior to the start of the
investigation of the instant offense of conviction may be covered
by this guideline if the conduct was purposefully calculated, and
likely, to thwart the investigation or prosecution of the offense
2. Limitations on Applicability of Adjustment.—This provision is
not intended to punish a defendant for the exercise of a
constitutional right. A defendant’s denial of guilt (other than a
denial of guilt under oath that constitutes perjury), refusal to
admit guilt or provide information to a probation officer, or
refusal to enter a plea of guilty is not a basis for application of
this provision. In applying this provision in respect to alleged
false testimony or statements by the defendant, the court should be
cognizant that inaccurate testimony or statements sometimes may
result from confusion, mistake, or faulty memory and, thus, not all
inaccurate testimony or statements necessarily reflect a willful
attempt to obstruct justice.
3. Covered Conduct Generally.—Obstructive conduct can vary widely
in nature, degree of planning, and seriousness. Application Note
4 sets forth examples of the types of conduct to which this
adjustment is intended to apply. Application Note 5 sets forth
examples of less serious forms of conduct to which this enhancement
is not intended to apply, but that ordinarily can appropriately be
sanctioned by the determination of the particular sentence within
the otherwise applicable guideline range. Although the conduct to
which this adjustment applies is not subject to precise definition,
comparison of the examples set forth in Application Notes 4 and 5
should assist the court in determining whether application of this
adjustment is warranted in a particular case.
4. Examples of Covered Conduct.—The following is a non-exhaustive
list of examples of the types of conduct to which this adjustment
(a) threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing
a co-defendant, witness, or juror, directly or indirectly, or
attempting to do so;
(b) committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury ,
including during the course of a civil proceeding if such perjury
pertains to conduct that forms the basis of the offense of
(c) producing or attempting to produce a false, altered, or
counterfeit document or record during an official investigation or
(d) destroying or concealing or directing or procuring another
person to destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an
official investigation or judicial proceeding (e.g., shredding a
document or destroying ledgers upon learning that an official
investigation has commenced or is about to commence), or attempting
to do so; however, if such conduct occurred contemporaneously with
arrest (e.g., attempting to swallow or throw away a controlled
substance), it shall not, standing alone, be sufficient to warrant
an adjustment for obstruction unless it resulted in a material
hindrance to the official investigation or prosecution of the
instant offense or the sentencing of the offender; (e) escaping or attempting to escape from custody before trial or
sentencing; or willfully failing to appear, as ordered, for a
judicial proceeding; (f) providing materially false information to a judge or
magistrate; (g) providing a materially false statement to a law enforcement
officer that significantly obstructed or impeded the official
(h) providing materially false information to a probation officer
in respect to a presentence or other investigation for the court;
(i) other conduct prohibited by obstruction of justice provisions
under Title 18, United States Code (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510, 1511);
property issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p);
(k) threatening the victim of the offense in an attempt to prevent
the victim from reporting the conduct constituting the offense of
This adjustment also applies to any other obstructive conduct in
respect to the official investigation, prosecution, or sentencing
of the instant offense where there is a separate count of
conviction for such conduct.
5. Examples of Conduct Ordinarily Not Covered.—Some types of
conduct ordinarily do not warrant application of this adjustment
but may warrant a greater sentence within the otherwise applicable
guideline range or affect the determination of whether other
guideline adjustments apply (e.g., §3E1.1 (Acceptance of
Responsibility)). However, if the defendant is convicted of a
separate count for such conduct, this adjustment will apply and
increase the offense level for the underlying offense (i.e., the
offense with respect to which the obstructive conduct occurred). See Application Note 8, below. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of the types of
(a) providing a false name or identification document at arrest,
except where such conduct actually resulted in a significant
hindrance to the investigation or prosecution of the instant
(b) making false statements, not under oath, to law enforcement
officers, unless Application Note 4(g) above applies;
(c) providing incomplete or misleading information, not amounting
to a material falsehood, in respect to a presentence investigation;
(e) lying to a probation or pretrial services officer about
defendant’s drug use while on pre-trial release, although such
conduct may be a factor in determining whether to reduce the
defendant’s sentence under §3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility).
6. "Material" Evidence Defined.—"Material" evidence, fact,
statement, or information, as used in this section, means evidence,
fact, statement, or information that, if believed, would tend to
influence or affect the issue under determination.
defendant is convicted of an offense covered by §2J1.1 (Contempt),
§2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice), §2J1.3 (Perjury or Subornation of
Perjury; Bribery of Witness), §2J1.5 (Failure to Appear by Material
Witness), §2J1.6 (Failure to Appear by Defendant), §2J1.9 (Payment
to Witness), §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact), or §2X4.1
(Misprision of Felony), this adjustment is not to be applied to the
offense level for that offense except if a significant further
obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or
sentencing of the obstruction offense itself (e.g., if the
defendant threatened a witness during the course of the prosecution
for the obstruction offense).
8. Grouping Under §3D1.2(c).—If the defendant is convicted both of
an obstruction offense (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Penalty for
failure to appear); 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (Perjury generally)) and an
underlying offense (the offense with respect to which the
obstructive conduct occurred), the count for the obstruction
offense will be grouped with the count for the underlying offense
under subsection (c) of §3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts). The offense level for that group of closely related counts will be
the offense level for the underlying offense increased by the 2-level adjustment specified by this section, or the offense level
9. Accountability for §1B1.3(a)(1)(A) Conduct.—Under this section,
the defendant is accountable for his own conduct and for conduct
that he aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
or willfully caused.
November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendments 251 and 252);
November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 347); November 1, 1991
(see Appendix C, amendment 415); November 1, 1992 (see Appendix C,
amendment 457); November 1, 1993 (see Appendix C, amendment 496);
November 1, 1997 (see Appendix C, amendment 566); November 1, 1998
(see Appendix C, amendments 579, 581, and 582); November 1, 2002
amendment 674); November 1, 2006 (see Appendix C, amendment 693).§3C1.2. Reckless Endangerment During FlightIf the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or
457).§3C1.3. Commission of Offense While on ReleaseIf a statutory sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147
applies, increase the offense level by 3 levels. CommentaryApplication Note: 1. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3147, a sentence of imprisonment must be
imposed in addition to the sentence for the underlying offense, and
the sentence of imprisonment imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 must
run consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the court, in order to comply with the statute, should
attributable to the underlying offense and the sentence
attributable to the enhancement. The court will have to ensure
that the "total punishment" (i.e., the sentence for the offense
committed while on release plus the statutory sentencing
enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147) is in accord with the guideline
range for the offense committed while on release, as adjusted by
the enhancement in this section. For example, if the applicable
adjusted guideline range is 30-37 months and the court determines
a "total punishment" of 36 months is appropriate, a sentence of 30
months for the underlying offense plus 6 months under 18 U.S.C. §
3147 would satisfy this requirement.
offense.This guideline enables the court to determine and implement a
combined "total punishment" consistent with the overall structure
of the guidelines, while at the same time complying with the
statutory requirement.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 2006 (see Appendix C,
amendment 684).§3C1.4. False Registration of Domain NameIf a statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f)(1) applies,
increase by 2 levels.CommentaryBackground: This adjustment implements the directive to the
Commission in section 204(b) of Pub. L. 108–482.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 2006 (see Appendix C,
amendment 689).PART D - MULTIPLE COUNTSIntroductory CommentaryThis Part provides rules for determining a single offense level
that encompasses all the counts of which the defendant is
convicted. These rules apply to multiple counts of conviction (A)
contained in the same indictment or information; or (B) contained
in different indictments or informations for which sentences are to
be imposed at the same time or in a consolidated proceeding. The
single, "combined" offense level that results from applying these
rules is used, after adjustment pursuant to the guidelines in
subsequent parts, to determine the sentence. These rules have been
designed primarily with the more commonly prosecuted federal
offenses in mind. The rules in this Part seek to provide incremental punishment for
significant additional criminal conduct. The most serious offense
is used as a starting point. The other counts determine how much
to increase the offense level. The amount of the additional
punishment declines as the number of additional offenses increases.Some offenses that may be charged in multiple-count indictments are
so closely intertwined with other offenses that conviction for them
ordinarily would not warrant increasing the guideline range. For
example, embezzling money from a bank and falsifying the related
records, although legally distinct offenses, represent essentially
the same type of wrongful conduct with the same ultimate harm, so
that it would be more appropriate to treat them as a single offense
for purposes of sentencing. Other offenses, such as an assault
causing bodily injury to a teller during a bank robbery, are so
closely related to the more serious offense that it would be
appropriate to treat them as part of the more serious offense,
leaving the sentence enhancement to result from application of a
specific offense characteristic. In order to limit the significance of the formal charging decision
and to prevent multiple punishment for substantially identical
offense conduct, this Part provides rules for grouping offenses
together. Convictions on multiple counts do not result in a
sentence enhancement unless they represent additional conduct that
is not otherwise accounted for by the guidelines. In essence,
counts that are grouped together are treated as constituting a
single offense for purposes of the guidelines. Some offense guidelines, such as those for theft, fraud and drug
offenses, contain provisions that deal with repetitive or ongoing
behavior. Other guidelines, such as those for assault and robbery,
are oriented more toward single episodes of criminal behavior. Accordingly, different rules are required for dealing with
multiple-count convictions involving these two different general
classes of offenses. More complex cases involving different types
of offenses may require application of one rule to some of the
counts and another rule to other counts.Some offenses, e.g., racketeering and conspiracy, may be
"composite" in that they involve a pattern of conduct or scheme
involving multiple underlying offenses. The rules in this Part are
to be used to determine the offense level for such composite
offenses from the offense level for the underlying offenses.Essentially, the rules in this Part can be summarized as follows: (1) If the offense guidelines in Chapter Two base the offense level
primarily on the amount of money or quantity of substance involved
(e.g., theft, fraud, drug trafficking, firearms dealing), or
otherwise contain provisions dealing with repetitive or ongoing
misconduct (e.g., many environmental offenses), add the numerical
quantities and apply the pertinent offense guideline, including any
specific offense characteristics for the conduct taken as a whole. (2) When offenses are closely interrelated, group them together for
purposes of the multiple-count rules, and use only the offense
level for the most serious offense in that group. (3) As to other
offenses (e.g., independent instances of assault or robbery), start
with the offense level for the most serious count and use the
number and severity of additional counts to determine the amount by
which to increase that offense level. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective
November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendment 121); November 1, 2007
(see Appendix C, amendment 707).§3D1.1. Procedure for Determining Offense Level on Multiple Counts(a) When a defendant has been convicted of more than one count, the
and 680); November 1, 2007 (see Appendix C, amendment 707) .§3D1.2. Groups of Closely Related CountsAll counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped
June 15, 1988 (see Appendix C, amendment 45); November 1, 1989 (see
Appendix C, amendments 121, 253-256, and 303); November 1, 1990
and 680); November 1, 2007 (see Appendix C, amendment 701).§3D1.3. Offense Level Applicable to Each Group of Closely Related
1, 2001 (see Appendix C, amendment 617); November 1, 2004 (see
Appendix C, amendment 674).§3D1.4. Determining the Combined Offense LevelThe combined offense level is determined by taking the offense
November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 350).§3D1.5. Determining the Total PunishmentUse the combined offense level to determine the appropriate
sentence in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Five.CommentaryThis section refers the court to Chapter Five (Determining the
Sentence) in order to determine the total punishment to be imposed
based upon the combined offense level. The combined offense level is subject to adjustments from Chapter Three, Part E
(Acceptance of Responsibility) and Chapter Four, Part B (Career
Offenders and Criminal Livelihood). Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987.* * * * *Illustrations of the Operation of the Multiple-Count RulesThe following examples, drawn from presentence reports in the
Commission’s files, illustrate the operation of the guidelines for
multiple counts. The examples are discussed summarily; a more
thorough, step-by-step approach is recommended until the user is
thoroughly familiar with the guidelines. 1. Defendant A was convicted on four counts, each charging robbery
of a different bank. Each would represent a distinct Group. §3D1.2. In each of the first three robberies, the offense level
was 22 (20 plus a 2-level increase because a financial institution
was robbed) (§2B3.1(b)). In the fourth robbery $12,000 was taken
and a firearm was displayed; the offense level was therefore 28. As the first three counts are 6 levels lower than the fourth, each
of the first three represents one-half unit for purposes of §3D1.4. Altogether there are 2 1/2 Units, and the offense level for the
most serious (28) is therefore increased by 3 levels under the
table. The combined offense level is 31. 2. Defendant C was convicted on four counts: (1) distribution of
230 grams of cocaine; (2) distribution of 150 grams of cocaine;
$20,000 to avoid prosecution. The combined offense level for drug
offenses is determined by the total quantity of drugs, converted to
marihuana equivalents (using the Drug Equivalency Tables in the
Commentary to §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting,
or Trafficking)). The first count translates into 46 kilograms of
marihuana; the second count translates into 30 kilograms of
marihuana; and the third count translates into 75 kilograms of
marihuana. The total is 151 kilograms of marihuana. Under §2D1.1,
the combined offense level for the drug offenses is 26. In
addition, because of the attempted bribe of the DEA agent, this
offense level is increased by 2 levels to 28 under §3C1.1
(Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice). Because
the conduct constituting the bribery offense is accounted for by
§3C1.1, it becomes part of the same Group as the drug offenses
pursuant to §3D1.2(c). The combined offense level is 28 pursuant
to §3D1.3(a), because the offense level for bribery (22) is less
than the offense level for the drug offenses (28). 3. Defendant D was convicted of four counts arising out of a scheme
pursuant to which he received kickbacks from subcontractors. The
counts were as follows: (1) The defendant received $27,000 from
subcontractor A relating to contract X (Mail Fraud). (2) The
defendant received $12,000 from subcontractor A relating to
contract X (Commercial Bribery). (3) The defendant received
$15,000 from subcontractor A relating to contract Y (Mail Fraud). (4) The defendant received $20,000 from subcontractor B relating to
contract Z (Commercial Bribery). The mail fraud counts are covered
by §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud). The bribery
counts are covered by §2B4.1 (Bribery in Procurement of Bank Loan
and Other Commercial Bribery), which treats the offense as a
sophisticated fraud. The total money involved is $74,000, which
results in an offense level of 16 under either §2B1.1 (assuming the
application of the "sophisticated means" enhancement in
§2B1.1(b)(8)) or §2B4.1. Since these two guidelines produce
identical offense levels, the combined offense level is 16.
(see Appendix C, amendment 350); November 1, 1991 (see Appendix C,
amendment 417); November 1, 1995 (see Appendix C, amendment 534);
November 1, 2001 (see Appendix C, amendment 617).PART E - ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY§3E1.1. Acceptance of Responsibility
responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by