Chapter Five

Sentencing Table

The Sentencing Table used to determine the guideline range follows:

Commentary to Sentencing Table

Application Notes:

1. The Offense Level (1–43) forms the vertical axis of the Sentencing Table. The Criminal History Category (I–VI) forms the horizontal axis of the Table. The intersection of the Offense Level and Criminal History Category displays the Guideline Range in months of imprisonment. “Life” means life imprisonment. For example, the guideline range applicable to a defendant with an Offense Level of 15 and a Criminal History Category of III is 24–30 months of imprisonment.

2. In rare cases, a total offense level of less than 1 or more than 43 may result from application of the guidelines. A total offense level ofless than 1 is to be treated as an offense level of 1. An offense level of more than 43 is to be treated as an offense level of 43.

3. The Criminal History Category is determined by the total criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A, except as provided in §4B1.1 (Career Offender) and 4B1.4 (Armed Career Criminal). The total criminal history points associated with each Criminal History Category are shown under each Criminal History Category in the Sentencing Table.

Introductory Commentary

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 makes probation a sentence in and of itself. 18 U.S.C. § 3561. Probation may be used as an alternative to incarceration, provided that the terms and conditions of probation can be fashioned so as to meet fully the statutory purposes of sentencing, including promoting respect for law, providing just punishment for the offense, achieving general deterrence, and protecting the public from further crimes by the defendant.

Introductory Commentary

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 requires the court to assess a wide range of factors "in determining whether to include a term of supervised release, and, if a term of supervised release is to be included, in determining the length of the term and the conditions of supervised release." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). These determinations aim to make the imposition and scope of supervised release "dependent on the needs of the defendant for supervision." See S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 (1983). In conducting such an individualized assessment, the court can "assure that [those] who will need post-release supervision will receive it" while "prevent[ing] probation system resources from being wasted on supervisory services for releasees who do not need them." Id. at 54; see also Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 709 (2000) ("Supervised release departed from the parole system it replaced by giving district courts the freedom to provide postrelease supervision for those, and only those, who needed it . . . . Congress aimed, then, to use the district courts’ discretionary judgment to allocate supervision to those releasees who needed it most."). Supervised release "fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration." United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000). Accordingly, a court should consider whether the defendant needs supervision in order to ease transition into the community or to provide further rehabilitation and whether supervision will promote public safety. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a)(2)(C)); see also S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 (1983) (indicating that a "primary goal of [a term of supervised release] is to ease the defendant’s transition into the community after the service of a long prison term for a particularly serious offense, or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and training programs after release").