CHAPTER SIX – SENTENCING PROCEDURES, PLEA AGREEMENTS, AND CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 2006 (amendment 694).

 

PART A – SENTENCING PROCEDURES

 

Introductory Commentary

This part addresses sentencing procedures that are applicable in all cases, including those in which guilty or nolo contendere pleas are entered with or without a plea agreement between the parties, and convictions based upon judicial findings or verdicts.  It sets forth the procedures for establishing the facts upon which the sentence will be based.  Reliable fact-finding is essential to procedural due process and to the accuracy and uniformity of sentencing.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).

§6A1.1.     Presentence Report (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

A thorough presentence investigation ordinarily is essential in determining the facts relevant to sentencing.  Rule 32(c)(1)(A) permits the judge to dispense with a presentence report in certain limited circumstances, as when a specific statute requires or when the court finds sufficient information in the record to enable it to exercise its statutory sentencing authority meaningfully and explains its finding on the record.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 58); November 1, 1989 (amendment 293); November 1, 1997 (amendment 574); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6A1.2.     Disclosure of Presentence Report; Issues in Dispute (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

Background:  In order to focus the issues prior to sentencing, the parties are required to respond in writing to the presentence report and to identify any issues in dispute.  See Rule 32(f), Fed. R. Crim. P.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 59); November 1, 1991 (amendment 425); November 1, 1997 (amendment 574); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6A1.3.     Resolution of Disputed Factors (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

Although lengthy sentencing hearings seldom should be necessary, disputes about sentencing factors must be resolved with care.  When a dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination, the court must ensure that the parties have an adequate opportunity to present relevant information.  Written statements of counsel or affidavits of witnesses may be adequate under many circumstances.  See, e.g., United States v. Ibanez, 924 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1991).  An evidentiary hearing may sometimes be the only reliable way to resolve disputed issues.  See, e.g., United States v. Jimenez Martinez, 83 F.3d 488, 494–95 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding error in district court's denial of defendant's motion for evidentiary hearing given questionable reliability of affidavit on which the district court relied at sentencing); United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502, 521(10th Cir. 1993) (remanding because district court did not hold evidentiary hearing to address defendants' objections to drug quantity determination or make requisite findings of fact regarding drug quantity); see also, United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053, 1057 n.9 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980).  The sentencing court must determine the appropriate procedure in light of the nature of the dispute, its relevance to the sentencing determination, and applicable case law.

In determining the relevant facts, sentencing judges are not restricted to information that would be admissible at trial.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3661; see also United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 154 (1997) (holding that lower evidentiary standard at sentencing permits sentencing court's consideration of acquitted conduct); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 399–401 (1995) (noting that sentencing courts have traditionally considered wide range of information without the procedural protections of a criminal trial, including information concerning criminal conduct that may be the subject of a subsequent prosecution); Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747–48 (1994) (noting that district courts have traditionally considered defendant's prior criminal conduct even when the conduct did not result in a conviction).  Any information may be considered, so long as it has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.  Watts, 519 U.S. at 157; Nichols, 511 U.S. at 748; United States v. Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 927 (1991); United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038 (1990).  Reliable hearsay evidence may be considered.  United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040 (1994); United States v. Sciarrino, 884 F.2d 95 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 997 (1989).  Out-of-court declarations by an unidentified informant may be considered where there is good cause for the non-disclosure of the informant's identity and there is sufficient corroboration by other means.  United States v. Rogers, 1 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 980 (1993); United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707, 713 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980).  Unreliable allegations shall not be considered.  United States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d 204 (10th Cir. 1993).

The Commission believes that use of a preponderance of the evidence standard is appropriate to meet due process requirements and policy concerns in resolving disputes regarding application of the guidelines to the facts of a case.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 294); November 1, 1991 (amendment 387); November 1, 1997 (amendment 574); November 1, 1998 (amendment 586); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6A1.4.     Notice of Possible Departure  (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

Background:  The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended, effective December 1, 2002, to incorporate into Rule 32(h) the holding in Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138–39 (1991).  This policy statement parallels Rule 32(h), Fed. R. Crim. P.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6A1.5.     Crime Victims' Rights (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

Application Note:

1.      Definition.—For purposes of this policy statement, "crime victim" has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e).

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 2006 (amendment 694).

 

PART B – PLEA AGREEMENTS

 

Introductory Commentary

Policy statements governing the acceptance of plea agreements under Rule 11(c), Fed. R. Crim. P., are intended to ensure that plea negotiation practices:  (1) promote the statutory purposes of sentencing prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and (2) do not perpetuate unwarranted sentencing disparity.

These policy statements make clear that sentencing is a judicial function and that the appropriate sentence in a guilty plea case is to be determined by the judge.  The policy statements also ensure that the basis for any judicial decision to depart from the guidelines will be explained on the record.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6B1.1.     Plea Agreement Procedure (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

This provision parallels the procedural requirements of Rule 11(c), Fed. R. Crim. P.  Plea agreements must be fully disclosed and a defendant whose plea agreement includes a nonbinding recommendation must be advised that the court's refusal to accept the sentencing recommendation will not entitle the defendant to withdraw the plea.

Section 6B1.1(c) deals with the timing of the court's decision regarding whether to accept or reject the plea agreement.  Rule 11(c)(3)(A) gives the court discretion to accept or reject the plea agreement immediately or defer a decision pending consideration of the presentence report.  Given that a presentence report normally will be prepared, the Commission recommends that the court defer acceptance of the plea agreement until the court has reviewed the presentence report.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6B1.2.     Standards for Acceptance of Plea Agreements (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

The court may accept an agreement calling for dismissal of charges or an agreement not to pursue potential charges if the remaining charges reflect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior.  This requirement does not authorize judges to intrude upon the charging discretion of the prosecutor.  If the government's motion to dismiss charges or statement that potential charges will not be pursued is not contingent on the disposition of the remaining charges, the judge should defer to the government's position except under extraordinary circumstances.  Rule 48(a), Fed. R. Crim. P.  However, when the dismissal of charges or agreement not to pursue potential charges is contingent on acceptance of a plea agreement, the court's authority to adjudicate guilt and impose sentence is implicated, and the court is to determine whether or not dismissal of charges will undermine the sentencing guidelines.

Similarly, the court should accept a recommended sentence or a plea agreement requiring imposition of a specific sentence only if the court is satisfied either that such sentence is an appropriate sentence within the applicable guideline range or, if not, that the sentence is outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons and those reasons are set forth with specificity in the statement of reasons form.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).  As set forth in subsection (d) of §5K2.0 (Grounds for Departure), however, the court may not depart below the applicable guideline range merely because of the defendant's decision to plead guilty to the offense or to enter a plea agreement with respect to the offense.

A defendant who enters a plea of guilty in a timely manner will enhance the likelihood of his receiving a reduction in offense level under §3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility).  Further reduction in offense level (or sentence) due to a plea agreement will tend to undermine the sentencing guidelines.

The second paragraph of subsection (a) provides that a plea agreement that includes the dismissal of a charge, or a plea agreement not to pursue a potential charge, shall not prevent the conduct underlying that charge from being considered under the provisions of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in connection with the count(s) of which the defendant is convicted.  This paragraph prevents a plea agreement from restricting consideration of conduct that is within the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in respect to the count(s) of which the defendant is convicted; it does not in any way expand or modify the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).  Section 5K2.21 (Dismissed and Uncharged Conduct) addresses the use, as a basis for upward departure, of conduct underlying a charge dismissed as part of a plea agreement in the case, or underlying a potential charge not pursued in the case as part of a plea agreement.

The Commission encourages the prosecuting attorney prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to disclose to the defendant the facts and circumstances of the offense and offender characteristics, then known to the prosecuting attorney, that are relevant to the application of the sentencing guidelines.  This recommendation, however, shall not be construed to confer upon the defendant any right not otherwise recognized in law.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 295); November 1, 1992 (amendment 467); November 1, 1993 (amendment 495); November 1, 2000 (amendment 604); October 27, 2003 (amendment 651); November 1, 2011 (amendment 757).

§6B1.3.     Procedure Upon Rejection of a Plea Agreement (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

This provision implements the requirements of Rule 11(c)(5).  It assures the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea when the court has rejected a plea agreement.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).

§6B1.4.     Stipulations (Policy Statement)

 

Commentary

This provision requires that when a plea agreement includes a stipulation of fact, the stipulation must fully and accurately disclose all factors relevant to the determination of sentence.  This provision does not obligate the parties to reach agreement on issues that remain in dispute or to present the court with an appearance of agreement in areas where agreement does not exist.  Rather, the overriding principle is full disclosure of the circumstances of the actual offense and the agreement of the parties.  The stipulation should identify all areas of agreement, disagreement and uncertainty that may be relevant to the determination of sentence.  Similarly, it is not appropriate for the parties to stipulate to misleading or non-existent facts, even when both parties are willing to assume the existence of such "facts" for purposes of the litigation.  Rather, the parties should fully disclose the actual facts and then explain to the court the reasons why the disposition of the case should differ from that which such facts ordinarily would require under the guidelines.

Because of the importance of the stipulations and the potential complexity of the factors that can affect the determination of sentences, stipulations ordinarily should be in writing.  However, exceptions to this practice may be allowed by local rule.   The Commission intends to pay particular attention to this aspect of the plea agreement procedure as experience under the guidelines develops.  See Commentary to §6A1.2 (Disclosure of Presentence Report; Issues in Dispute).

Section 6B1.4(d) makes clear that the court is not obliged to accept the stipulation of the parties.  Even though stipulations are expected to be accurate and complete, the court cannot rely exclusively upon stipulations in ascertaining the factors relevant to the determination of sentence.  Rather, in determining the factual basis for the sentence, the court will consider the stipulation, together with the results of the presentence investigation, and any other relevant information.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.