AMENDMENT 738
Chapter Five, Part A, is amended in the Sentencing Table by redesignating Zones A, B, C, and D (as designated by Amendment 462, see USSG Appendix C, Amendment 462 (effective November 1, 1992)) as follows: Zone A (containing all guideline ranges having a minimum of zero months); Zone B (containing all guideline ranges having a minimum of at least one but not more than nine months); Zone C (containing all guideline ranges having a minimum of at least ten but not more than twelve months); and Zone D (containing all guideline ranges having a minimum of fifteen months or more).
The Commentary to §5B1.1 captioned "Application Notes" is amended in Note 1(b) by striking "six" and inserting "nine"; and in Note 2 by striking "eight" and inserting "ten".
The Commentary to §5C1.1 captioned "Application Notes" is amended in Note 3 in the first paragraph by striking "six" and inserting "nine";
in Note 4 by striking "eight, nine, or ten months" and inserting "ten or twelve months"; by striking "8-14" and inserting "10-16" both places it appears; by striking "sentence of four" and inserting "sentence of five" both places it appears; by striking "four" before "months community" and inserting "five"; by striking "five" after "and a sentence of" and inserting "ten";
by striking Note 6 as follows:
"6. There may be cases in which a departure from the guidelines by substitution of a longer period of community confinement than otherwise authorized for an equivalent number of months of imprisonment is warranted to accomplish a specific treatment purpose (e.g., substitution of twelve months in an approved residential drug treatment program for twelve months of imprisonment). Such a substitution should be considered only in cases where the defendant’s criminality is related to the treatment problem to be addressed and there is a reasonable likelihood that successful completion of the treatment program will eliminate that problem.",
and inserting the following:
"6. There may be cases in which a departure from the sentencing options authorized for Zone C of the Sentencing Table (under which at least half the minimum term must be satisfied by imprisonment) to the sentencing options authorized for Zone B of the Sentencing Table (under which all or most of the minimum term may be satisfied by intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention instead of imprisonment) is appropriate to accomplish a specific treatment purpose. Such a departure should be considered only in cases where the court finds that (A) the defendant is an abuser of narcotics, other controlled substances, or alcohol, or suffers from a significant mental illness, and (B) the defendant’s criminality is related to the treatment problem to be addressed.
In determining whether such a departure is appropriate, the court should consider, among other things, (1) the likelihood that completion of the treatment program will successfully address the treatment problem, thereby reducing the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant, and (2) whether imposition of less imprisonment than required by Zone C will increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.
Examples: The following examples both assume the applicable guideline range is 12-18 months and the court departs in accordance with this application note. Under Zone C rules, the defendant must be sentenced to at least six months imprisonment. (1) The defendant is a nonviolent drug offender in Criminal History Category I and probation is not prohibited by statute. The court departs downward to impose a sentence of probation, with twelve months of intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention and participation in a substance abuse treatment program as conditions of probation. (2) The defendant is convicted of a Class A or B felony, so probation is prohibited by statute (see §5B1.1(b)). The court departs downward to impose a sentence of one month imprisonment, with eleven months in community confinement or home detention and participation in a substance abuse treatment program as conditions of supervised release.";
in Note 7 by striking the last sentence as follows:
"Generally, such defendants have failed to reform despite the use of such alternatives.";
in Note 8 by striking "twelve" and inserting "15"; and by redesignating Note 8 as Note 9 and inserting after Note 7 the following:
"8. In a case in which community confinement in a residential treatment program is imposed to accomplish a specific treatment purpose, the court should consider the effectiveness of the residential treatment program.".
Reason for Amendment: This amendment is a two-part amendment expanding the availability of alternatives to incarceration. The amendment provides a greater range of sentencing options to courts with respect to certain offenders by expanding Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table by one level each and addresses cases in which a departure from imprisonment to an alternative to incarceration (such as intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home confinement) may be appropriate to accomplish a specific treatment purpose.
The amendment is a result of the Commission’s continued multi-year study of alternatives to incarceration. The Commission initiated this study in recognition of increased interest in alternatives to incarceration by all three branches of government and renewed public debate about the size of the federal prison population and the need for greater availability of alternatives to incarceration for certain nonviolent first offenders. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 994(g), (j).
As part of the study, the Commission held a two-day national symposium at which the Commission heard from experts on alternatives to incarceration, including federal and state judges, congressional staff, professors of law and the social sciences, corrections and alternative sentencing practitioners and specialists, federal and state prosecutors and defense attorneys, prison officials, and others involved in criminal justice. See United States Sentencing Commission, Symposium on Alternatives to Incarceration (July 2008). In considering the amendment, the Commission also reviewed federal sentencing data, public comment and testimony, recent scholarly literature, current federal and state practices, and feedback in various forms from federal judges.
First, the amendment expands Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table in Chapter Five. Specifically, it expands Zone B by one level for each Criminal History Category (taking this area from Zone C), and expands Zone C by one level for each Criminal History Category (taking this area from Zone D). Accordingly, under the amendment, defendants in Zone C with an applicable guideline range of 8-14 months or 9-15 months are moved to Zone B, and defendants in Zone D with an applicable guideline range of 12-18 months are moved to Zone C. Conforming changes also are made to §§5B1.1 (Imposition of a Term of Probation) and 5C1.1. In considering this one-level expansion, the Commission observed that approximately 42 percent of the Zone C offenders covered by the amendment and approximately 52 percent of the Zone D offenders covered by the amendment already receive sentences below the applicable guideline range.
The Commission estimates that of the 71,054 offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2009 for which complete sentencing guideline application information is available, 1,565 offenders in Zone C, or 2.2 percent, would have been in Zone B of the Sentencing Table under the amendment, and 2,734 offenders in Zone D, or 3.8 percent, would have been in Zone C. Not all of these offenders would have been eligible for an alternative to incarceration, however, because many were non-citizens who may have been subject to an immigration detainer and some were statutorily prohibited from being sentenced to a term of probation, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1) (prohibiting a defendant convicted of a Class A or Class B felony from being sentenced to a term of probation).
As a further reason for the zone expansion, Commission data indicate that courts often sentence offenders in Zone D with an applicable guideline range of 12-18 months to a term of imprisonment of 12 months and one day for the specific purpose of making such offenders eligible for credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). For such an offender, assuming the maximum "good time credit" is earned, the sentence effectively becomes approximately ten and one-half months. Given that prior to the amendment the highest guideline range in Zone C was 10-16 months, the Commission determined that offenders in Zone D with an applicable guideline range of 12-18 months, many of whom effectively serve a sentence at the lower end of the highest Zone C sentencing range, should be included in Zone C.
Second, the amendment clarifies and illustrates certain cases in which a departure may be appropriate to accomplish a specific treatment purpose. Specifically, it amends an existing departure provision at §5C1.1 (Imposition of a Term of Imprisonment), Application Note 6. As amended, the application note states that a departure from the sentencing options authorized for Zone C of the Sentencing Table to accomplish a specific treatment purpose should be considered only in cases where the court finds that (A) the defendant is an abuser of narcotics, other controlled substances, or alcohol, or suffers from a significant mental illness, and (B) the defendant's criminality is related to the treatment problem to be addressed.
Under the application note as amended, the court may depart from the sentencing options authorized for Zone C (under which at least half the minimum term must be satisfied by imprisonment) to the sentencing options authorized for Zone B (under which all or most of the minimum term may be satisfied by intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention instead of imprisonment) to accomplish a specific treatment purpose. The application note also provides that, in determining whether such a departure is appropriate, the court should consider, among other things, two factors relating to public safety: (1) the likelihood that completion of the treatment program will successfully address the treatment problem, thereby reducing the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant, and (2) whether imposition of less imprisonment than required by Zone C will increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant. Some public comment, testimony, and research suggested that successful completion of treatment programs may reduce recidivism rates and that, for some defendants, confinement at home or in the community instead of imprisonment may better address both the defendant's need for treatment and the need to protect the public. Accordingly, the Commission amended the application note to clarify the criteria and to provide examples of such cases.
The amendment also makes two other changes to the Commentary to §5C1.1 regarding the factors to be considered in determining whether to impose an alternative to incarceration. The amendment adds an application note providing that, in a case in which community confinement in a residential treatment program is imposed to accomplish a specific treatment purpose, the court should consider the effectiveness of the treatment program. The amendment also deletes as unnecessary the second sentence of Application Note 7.
Effective Date: The effective date of this amendment is November 1, 2010.