Skip to Main Content

GUIDELINES MANUAL

2024
CHAPTER THREE - ADJUSTMENTS

PART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTS

Introductory Commentary

The 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 (amendment 344); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).

PART B - ROLE IN THE OFFENSE

Introductory Commentary

This 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 (amendment 345); November 1, 1992 (amendment 456); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).

PART C - OBSTRUCTION AND RELATED ADJUSTMENTS

Historical Note Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 2006 (amendment 684).

PART D - MULTIPLE COUNTS

Introductory Commentary

This 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 (amendment 121); November 1, 2007 (amendment 707); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).


Concluding Commentary to Part D of Chapter Three

Illustrations of the Operation of the Multiple-Count Rules

The 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 of 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 $21,000 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 B was convicted of four counts: (1) distribution of 230 grams of cocaine; (2) distribution of 150 grams of cocaine; (3) distribution of 75 grams of heroin; (4) offering a DEA agent $20,000 to avoid prosecution. The combined offense level for drug offenses is determined by the total quantity of drugs, converted to converted drug weight (using the Drug Conversion Tables in the Commentary to §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking)). The first count translates into 46 kilograms of converted drug weight; the second count translates into 30 kilograms of converted drug weight; and the third count translates into 75 kilograms of converted drug weight. The total is 151 kilograms of converted drug weight. Under §2D1.1, the combined offense level for the drug offenses is 24. In addition, because of the attempted bribe of the DEA agent, this offense level is increased by 2 levels to 26 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 26 pursuant to §3D1.3(a), because the offense level for bribery (20) is less than the offense level for the drug offenses (26).

3. Defendant C was convicted of four counts arising out of a scheme pursuant to which the defendant received kickbacks from subcontractors. The counts were as follows: (1) The defendant received $1,000 from subcontractor A relating to contract X (Mail Fraud). (2) The defendant received $1,000 from subcontractor A relating to contract X (Commercial Bribery). (3) The defendant received $1,000 from subcontractor A relating to contract Y (Mail Fraud). (4) The defendant received $1,000 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 $4,000, which results in an offense level of 9 under either §2B1.1 (assuming the application of the “sophisticated means” enhancement in §2B1.1(b)(10)) or §2B4.1. Since these two guidelines produce identical offense levels, the combined offense level is 9.

Historical NoteEffective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 303); November 1, 1990 (amendment 350); November 1, 1991 (amendment 417); November 1, 1995 (amendment 534); November 1, 2001 (amendment 617); November 1, 2009 (amendment 737); November 1, 2011 (amendment 760); November 1, 2014 (amendment 782); November 1, 2015 (amendment 796); November 1, 2018 (amendment 808).

PART E - ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY