Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts

AGENCY:

United States Sentencing Commission.

ACTION:

Notice and request for public comment and hearing.

SUMMARY:

The United States Sentencing Commission is considering promulgating amendments to the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. This notice sets forth the proposed amendments and, for each proposed amendment, a synopsis of the issues addressed by that proposed amendment. This notice also sets forth several issues for comment, some of which are set forth together with the proposed amendments, and one of which (regarding retroactive application of proposed amendments) is set forth in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this notice.

DATES:

Written Public Comment.

Written public comment regarding the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice, including public comment regarding retroactive application of any of the proposed amendments, should be received by the Commission not later than February 10, 2026. Public comment regarding a proposed amendment received after the close of the comment period may not be considered.

Public Hearing.

The Commission may hold a public hearing regarding the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice. Further information regarding any public hearing that may be scheduled, including requirements for testifying and providing written testimony, as well as the date, time, location, and scope of the hearing, will be provided by the Commission on its website at

www.ussc.gov.

ADDRESSES:

There are two methods for submitting public comment.

Electronic Submission of Comments.

Comments may be submitted electronically via the Commission's Public Comment Submission Portal at

https://comment.ussc.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Submission of Comments by Mail.

Comments may be submitted by mail to the following address: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 2-500, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs—Proposed Amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Dukes, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, (202) 502-4597.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).

Publication of a proposed amendment requires the affirmative vote of at least three voting members of the Commission and is deemed to be a request for public comment on the proposed amendment.

See

USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 2.2, 4.4. In contrast, the affirmative vote of at least four voting members is required to promulgate an amendment and submit it to Congress.

See id.

2.2; 28 U.S.C. 994(p).

The proposed amendments in this notice are presented in one of two formats. First, some of the amendments are proposed as specific revisions to a guideline, policy statement, or commentary. Bracketed text within a proposed amendment indicates a heightened interest on the Commission's part in comment and suggestions regarding alternative policy choices; for example, a proposed enhancement of [2][4][6] levels indicates that the Commission is considering, and invites comment on, alternative policy choices regarding the appropriate level of enhancement. Similarly, bracketed text within a specific offense characteristic or application note means that the Commission specifically invites comment on whether the proposed provision is appropriate. Second, the Commission has highlighted certain issues for comment and invites suggestions on how the Commission should respond to those issues.

In summary, the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice are as follows:

(1) A multi-part proposed amendment relating to drug offenses, including (A) (i) two options for amending § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) to address the purity distinction between methamphetamine in “actual” form and methamphetamine as part of a mixture; (ii) amendments to § 2D1.1 to address offenses involving “Ice;” and (iii) related issues for comment; (B) amendments to § 2D1.1 to address the enactment of the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (HALT Fentanyl Act), which permanently scheduled “fentanyl-related substances,” and a related issue for comment; and (C) amendments to § 2D1.1 to add new enhancements for offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, and related issues for comment.

(2) A proposed amendment to the

Guidelines Manual

to amend the monetary tables and values to adjust for inflation, including the monetary values in the fine tables for individual defendants and for organizational defendants, and related issues for comment.

(3) A two-part proposed amendment relating to § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud), including (A) a proposal to restructure the loss table at § 2B1.1(b)(1) to simplify application of the table, and related issues for comment; and (B) amendments to § 2B1.1 to revise existing specific offense characteristics and add new specific offense characteristics to reflect the culpability of the individual and harm to the victim, and related issues for comment.

(4) A proposed amendment to Chapter Three, Part E setting forth two options to add a new adjustment at § 3E1.2 (Post-Offense Rehabilitation) providing a reduction if the defendant demonstrates positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts, and related issues for comment.

(5) A proposed amendment to the

Guidelines Manual

to simplify the procedure for determining the single offense level for cases involving multiple counts, including replacing the five guidelines in Chapter Three, Part D with a single guideline at § 3D1.1 that provides all the steps necessary to determine the single offense level for multiple counts, and related issues for comment.

(6) A proposed amendment to the

Guidelines Manual

to delete from certain Chapter Two guidelines 26 specific offense characteristics that courts did not apply at all in the last five fiscal years and that were applied a small number of times—if at all—using a 25-year lookback window, and a related issue for comment.

(7) A proposed amendment setting forth two options to address specific offense characteristics relating to sophisticated criminal conduct, including (A) an option for creating a new Chapter Three adjustment at

§ 3C1.5 (Sophisticated Means) addressing sophisticated conduct and deleting specific offense characteristics in Chapter Two guidelines that currently address sophisticated conduct; (B) an option for amending Chapter Two guidelines that contain specific offense characteristics addressing sophisticated conduct to provide updated, uniform guidance relating to sophisticated conduct; and (C) related issues for comment.

(8) A multi-part proposed amendment relating to recently enacted legislation and a miscellaneous issue, including (A) amendments to Appendix A (Statutory Index) and the Commentary to § 2A6.1 (Threatening or Harassing Communications; Hoaxes; False Liens) to respond to the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on websites and Networks Act (“TAKE IT DOWN Act”), Public Law 119-12 (2025), and a related issue for comment; (B) amendments to Appendix A and the Commentary to § 2S1.3 (Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements; Failure to Report Cash or Monetary Transactions; Failure to File Currency and Monetary Instrument Report; Knowingly Filing False Reports; Bulk Cash Smuggling; Establishing or Maintaining Prohibited Accounts) to respond to the Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence Off Fentanyl Act (“FEND Off Fentanyl Act”), Public Law 118-50 (2024), and a related issue for comment; (C) amendments to Appendix A and the Commentary to § 2H3.1 (Interception of Communications; Eavesdropping; Disclosure of Certain Private or Protected Information) to respond to the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act, Public Law 118-50 (2024), and a related issue for comment; (D) amendments to Appendix A and the Commentary to § 2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud Involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions) to respond to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 118-78 (2024), and a related issue for comment; and (E) amendments to Appendix A and the Commentary to § 2B1.4 (Insider Trading) to provide an Appendix A reference for 18 U.S.C. 1348, dealing with securities and commodities fraud, by referencing the statute to § 2B1.4, while also maintaining the current reference to § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud).

(9) A proposed amendment making technical and other non-substantive changes throughout the

Guidelines Manual.

In addition, the Commission requests public comment regarding whether, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 994(u), any proposed amendment published in this notice should be included in subsection (d) of § 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants. The Commission lists in § 1B1.10(d) the specific guideline amendments that the court may apply retroactively under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Background Commentary to § 1B1.10 lists the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under § 1B1.10(b) as among the factors the Commission considers in selecting the amendments included in § 1B1.10(d). To the extent practicable, public comment should address each of these factors.

The text of the proposed amendments and related issues for comment are set forth below. Additional information pertaining to the proposed amendments and issues for comment described in this notice may be accessed through the Commission's website at

www.ussc.gov.

In addition, as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), plain-language summaries of the proposed amendments are available at

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendments/proposed-2026-amendments-federal-sentencing-guidelines-published-december-2025.

Authority:

28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), (x); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 2.2, 4.3, 4.4.

Carlton W. Reeves,

Chair.

Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official Commentary

1. Drug Offenses

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

In August 2025, the Commission identified as one of its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2026, “[f]urther examination of the penalty structure for certain drug trafficking offenses under § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses)),” including “consideration of possible amendments addressing the purity distinctions for methamphetamine provided in the Drug Quantity Table and related application notes” and “consideration of other miscellaneous issues pertaining to drug trafficking offenses coming to the Commission's attention, such as statutory changes relating to fentanyl, sentencing enhancements for offenses involving fentanyl, and other fentanyl-related issues.” U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Notice of Final Priorities,” 90 FR 39263 (Aug. 14, 2025).

This proposed amendment contains three parts (Parts A, B, and C). The Commission is considering whether to promulgate any or all of these parts, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Part A

of the proposed amendment sets forth two options for amending § 2D1.1 to address the purity distinction between methamphetamine in “actual” form and methamphetamine as part of a mixture. It would also amend § 2D1.1 to address offenses involving “Ice.” Issues for comment are also included.

Part B

of the proposed amendment would amend § 2D1.1 to address the enactment of the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (HALT Fentanyl Act), which permanently scheduled “fentanyl-related substances.” An issue for comment is also provided.

Part C

of the proposed amendment would amend § 2D1.1 to add new enhancements for offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Issues for comment are also provided.

(A) Methamphetamine

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

Part A of the proposed amendment sets forth two options for amending § 2D1.1 to address the purity distinction between methamphetamine in “actual” form and methamphetamine as part of a mixture. Part A of the proposed amendment also addresses offenses involving “Ice.” Both options in Part A aim to update the

Guidelines Manual'

s treatment of methamphetamine to reflect the evolving nature of methamphetamine trafficking, while addressing the concerns that animated Congress's decision to set mandatory minimum penalties for certain methamphetamine trafficking offenses.

Statutory History of Methamphetamine Trafficking Offenses

The statutory provisions and penalties associated with the trafficking of methamphetamine are found at 21 U.S.C. 841 and 960. While the statutory penalties for most drug types are based solely on drug quantity, the statutory penalties for methamphetamine are also based on the purity of the substance

involved in the offense. Sections 841 and 960 contain quantity threshold triggers for five- and ten-year mandatory minimums for methamphetamine (actual) (

i.e.,

“pure” methamphetamine) and methamphetamine (mixture) (

i.e.,

“a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine”).

See

21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), (B)(viii), 960(b)(1)(H), & 960(b)(2)(H). Two different 10-to-1 quantity ratios set the mandatory minimum penalties for methamphetamine trafficking offenses. First, the quantity of substance triggering the ten-year minimum is ten times the quantity triggering the five-year minimum. Second, the quantity of methamphetamine mixture triggering each mandatory minimum is set at ten times the quantity of methamphetamine (actual) triggering the same statutory minimum penalty.

These penalties stem from action taken by Congress in 1988 and 1998 to address methamphetamine trafficking offenses. The record for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 suggests that Congress endeavored to compare methamphetamine with other drugs in deciding the appropriate mandatory minimum threshold quantities, ultimately determining that methamphetamine “is a serious and common drug of abuse, comparable in dangerousness to other controlled substances” listed in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.

See

134 Cong. Rec. S17,367 (daily ed. Nov. 10, 1988). Specifically, Congress cited the Department of Justice's determination that the “quantity of methamphetamine that justifies these penalties is the same as that currently set forth for PCP”—the only drug in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that had a purity distinction.

Id.

Over the next ten years, Congress considered changes to the statutory penalties for methamphetamine, frequently invoking comparisons between methamphetamine and crack cocaine in terms of the dangers and harms associated with the two drugs. With the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998, Congress halved the quantities of methamphetamine set forth in the 1988 Act to the quantity threshold triggers that apply today. In doing so, it enacted mandatory minimum quantity thresholds for methamphetamine (actual) that matched those in place at the time for crack cocaine. Although the statutory penalties for crack cocaine have changed, the same statutory penalties for methamphetamine remain in place, and as explained below, the methamphetamine trafficking guidelines are linked to those penalties.

Guideline History of Methamphetamine Trafficking Offenses

Under § 2D1.1, the base offense level for offenses involving methamphetamine varies based on the purity of the substance. Specifically, the Drug Quantity Table at § 2D1.1(c) contains three different entries relating to methamphetamine: (1) “Methamphetamine,” which refers to the entire weight of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine; (2) “Methamphetamine (actual),” which refers to the weight of methamphetamine itself contained in a mixture or substance; and (3) “Ice,” which is defined as “a mixture or substance containing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of at least 80% purity” (

see

USSG § 2D1.1(c) (Note C)). The Drug Quantity Table sets base offense levels for methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual) in a manner that reflects the 10:1 quantity ratio of the applicable statutory provisions, such that it takes ten times more methamphetamine mixture than methamphetamine (actual) to trigger the same base offense level.

Although “Ice” is included in the guidelines, the term “Ice” does not appear in the statutory provisions setting penalties for methamphetamine offenses. “Ice” was added to the guidelines in response to the Crime Control Act of 1990, which directed the Commission to amend the guidelines “for offenses involving smokable crystal methamphetamine . . . so that convictions for [such offenses] will be assigned an offense level . . . two levels above that which would have been assigned to the same offense involving other forms of methamphetamine.”

See

Public Law 101-67, 2701 (1990). The 1990 Act did not, however, define “smokable crystal methamphetamine,” and the Commission and commenters struggled to determine its meaning. Ultimately, the Commission responded to the Act by adding “Ice” to the Drug Quantity Table—even though the 1990 Act did not use that term—and developed a definition of “Ice” based on the type and purity of methamphetamine.

See

USSG App. C, amend. 370 (effective Nov. 1, 1991). The Commission set the base offense levels for quantities of “Ice” equal to the base offense levels for the same quantities of methamphetamine (actual).

Evolving Nature of Methamphetamine Trafficking

As explained in a recent report published by the Commission, there have been changes to the trends in methamphetamine trafficking in the last two decades. When Congress established the different statutory penalties for methamphetamine (actual) and methamphetamine mixture in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the average purity of the methamphetamine being trafficked in the United States was seldom greater than 50 percent. At the time, individuals sentenced for trafficking highly pure methamphetamine were considered to have a higher function in a drug distribution chain, and therefore greater culpability in the offense. Since then, however, the purity of the methamphetamine trafficked in the United States has increased substantially, and it is now rare to find methamphetamine that tests lower than 90 percent pure.

See

U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, Methamphetamine Trafficking Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System 3 (2024) at

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/methamphetamine-trafficking-offenses-federal-criminal-justice-system.

Commission data further shows that the average purity of methamphetamine does not vary significantly based on the function of the individual drug trafficker. The Commission's report showed that high-level suppliers had drugs that were, on average, 95.2 percent pure, and drug organization employees had methamphetamine that was 93.3 percent pure. Likewise, an individual's function varied little by the primary type of methamphetamine involved in the offense, with the exception of the function of a drug courier. The rate of individuals sentenced for trafficking methamphetamine (actual) that acted as couriers (31.3%) was twice that compared to either methamphetamine mixture (13.5%) or “Ice” (13.8%).

While the nature of methamphetamine trafficking has evolved, so too has the methamphetamine trafficking caseload. Since fiscal year 2002, the number of offenses involving methamphetamine mixture has remained relatively steady, but the number of offenses involving methamphetamine (actual) and “Ice” has risen substantially. Offenses involving methamphetamine (actual) increased 299 percent from 910 offenses in fiscal year 2002 to 3,634 offenses in fiscal year 2022. As a result, in fiscal year 2022, methamphetamine (actual) accounted for more than half (52.2%) of

all methamphetamine cases. Offenses involving “Ice” also have risen during the past 20 years. In fiscal year 2002, there were 88 offenses involving “Ice” in the federal caseload; that number rose by 881 percent to 863 offenses in fiscal year 2022. Offenses involving “Ice” now make up more than ten percent (12.4%) of all methamphetamine cases. Offenses involving methamphetamine mixture comprise roughly a third (35.4%) of all methamphetamine cases.

See id.

at 4, 9, 18, 32-33, 38-39, 52.

Feedback From Stakeholders

The Commission has received significant comment regarding § 2D1.1's methamphetamine purity distinction, including in response to a proposed amendment the Commission published last year.

See

Public Comment on 2025 Proposed Amendments (March 2025) at

https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/public-comment/public-comment-2025-proposed-amendments.

Some commenters suggested that the Commission should revisit or eliminate the disparity in § 2D1.1's treatment of methamphetamine mixture, on the one hand, and methamphetamine (actual) and “Ice,” on the other. Most of these commenters stated that purity is no longer an accurate measure of offense culpability because methamphetamine today is highly and uniformly pure and that “Ice” cases do not involve a higher level of purity than other forms of methamphetamine. Some of these commenters also pointed to disparities in testing practices across judicial districts, which, in turn, have yielded disparate sentences.

The commenters diverged, however, on the action the Commission should take to address the 10:1 quantity ratio for methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual). Some commenters supported setting base offense levels for all methamphetamine at the level of methamphetamine mixture or some lower level, such as at the level of cocaine. Other commenters supported setting base offense levels for all methamphetamine at the level of methamphetamine (actual). Still other commenters suggested that the Commission set the base offense levels at a level in between methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual), and recommended that the Commission undertake additional study of the issues. The Commission has since held a hearing to study methamphetamine, including its chemical structure, pharmacological effects, trafficking patterns, and community impact, and the differences, if any, between methamphetamine of varying purity levels.

Proposed Amendment

Part A of the proposed amendment would amend § 2D1.1 to address offenses involving “Ice” and the purity distinction between methamphetamine in “actual” form and methamphetamine as part of a mixture. Part A contains two options to address the purity distinction, both of which aim to respond to changes in methamphetamine trafficking and continue to reflect the dangers and harms identified by Congress when it set mandatory minimum penalties for these offenses.

Revisions Relating to Methamphetamine Purity Distinction

Part A of the proposed amendment sets forth two options to address the 10:1 quantity ratio for methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual).

Option 1

would set the same quantity thresholds for all methamphetamine offenses. It would delete all references to “methamphetamine (actual)” from the Drug Quantity Table at § 2D1.1(c) and the Drug Conversion Tables at Application Note 8(D). The weight of the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine that triggers the base offense levels would then be the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Option 1 brackets four alternatives for the quantity thresholds for methamphetamine: (1) quantity thresholds matching the current quantity thresholds for methamphetamine mixture; (2) quantity thresholds matching those of fentanyl; (3) quantity thresholds matching those of cocaine base; and (4) quantity thresholds matching the current quantity thresholds for methamphetamine (actual). This approach would simplify § 2D1.1 by reducing the number of methamphetamine entries in the Drug Quantity Table and Drug Conversion Tables, while reflecting how methamphetamine trafficking has changed.

Option 2

would maintain different base offense levels for different methamphetamine offenses. It would set the baseline quantity thresholds for methamphetamine at a level between the current quantity thresholds for methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual). Option 2 brackets setting the baseline quantity thresholds for methamphetamine at the same level as cocaine base. The base offense level may be either reduced to the current base offense levels for methamphetamine mixture and its corresponding quantity thresholds if [1][2][3] or more of certain factors apply, or heightened to the current base offense levels for methamphetamine (actual) and its corresponding quantity thresholds if [1][2][3] or more of certain factors apply. Both lists of factors are set forth in the Notes to the Drug Quantity Table. These factors would reflect the concerns that animated Congress when it set the statutory minimum penalties for methamphetamine trafficking offenses.

Issues for comment for these revisions are also provided.

Revisions Relating to “Ice”

Part A of the proposed amendment would amend the Drug Quantity Table at § 2D1.1(c) and the Drug Equivalency Tables at Application Note 8(D) of the Commentary to § 2D1.1 to delete all references to “Ice.” In addition, it would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(19) that provides a [2]-level reduction if the offense involved only methamphetamine in a non-smokable, non-crystalline form, which would continue to ensure compliance with Congress's directive that “convictions for offenses involving smokable crystal methamphetamine will be assigned an offense level under the guidelines which is two levels above” other forms of methamphetamine.

An issue for comment relating to these revisions is also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2D1.1(b) is amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph (19):

“(19) If the offense involved only methamphetamine in a non-smokable, non-crystalline form, decrease by [2] levels.”.

Option 1 (Using a single entry for methamphetamine):

Section 2D1.1(c)(1) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• 45 KG or more of Methamphetamine, or

4.5 KG or more of Methamphetamine (actual), or

4.5 KG or more of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• [45][36][25.2][4.5] KG or more of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(2) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 15 KG but less than 45 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [15 KG but less than 45 KG][12 KG but less than 36 KG][8.4 KG but less than 25.2 KG][1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(3) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 5 KG but less than 15 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [5 KG but less than 15 KG][4 KG but less than 12 KG][2.8 KG but less than 8.4 KG][500 G but less than 1.5 KG] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(4) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 1.5 KG but less than 5 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 150 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 150 G but less than 500 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [1.5 KG but less than 5 KG][1.2 KG but less than 4 KG][840 G but less than 2.8 KG][150 G but less than 500 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(5) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 50 G but less than 150 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 50 G but less than 150 G of `Ice';”'

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [500 G but less than 1.5 KG][400 G but less than 1.2 KG][280 G but less than 840 G][50 G but less than 150 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(6) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 350 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 35 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 35 G but less than 50 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [350 G but less than 500 G][280 G but less than 400 G][196 G but less than 280 G][35 G but less than 50 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(7) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 200 G but less than 350 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 20 G but less than 35 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 20 G but less than 35 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [200 G but less than 350 G][160 G but less than 280 G][112 G but less than 196 G] [20 G but less than 35 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(8) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 50 G but less than 200 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 5 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 5 G but less than 20 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [50 G but less than 200 G][40 G but less than 160 G][28 G but less than 112 G][5 G but less than 20 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(9) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 40 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 4 G but less than 5 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 4 G but less than 5 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [40 G but less than 50 G][32 G but less than 40 G][22.4 G but less than 28 G] [4 G but less than 5 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(10) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 30 G but less than 40 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 3 G but less than 4 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 3 G but less than 4 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [30 G but less than 40 G][24 G but less than 32 G][16.8 G but less than 22.4 G][3 G but less than 4 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(11) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 20 G but less than 30 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 2 G but less than 3 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 2 G but less than 3 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [20 G but less than 30 G][16 G but less than 24 G][11.2 G but less than 16.8 G][2 G but less than 3 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(12) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 10 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 1 G but less than 2 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 1 G but less than 2 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [10 G but less than 20 G][8 G but less than 16 G][5.6 G but less than 11.2 G] [1 G but less than 2 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(13) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 5 G but less than 10 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 500 MG but less than 1 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 500 MG but less than 1 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• At least [5 G but less than 10 G][4 G but less than 8 G][2.8 G but less than 5.6 G] [500 MG but less than 1 G] of Methamphetamine;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(14) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• Less than 5 G of Methamphetamine, or

less than 500 MG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

less than 500 MG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following line:

“• Less than [5 G][4 G][2.8 G][500 MG] of Methamphetamine;”.

The annotation to § 2D1.1(c) captioned “Notes to Drug Quantity Table” is amended—

in Note (B) by striking the following:

“The terms `PCP (actual)', `Amphetamine (actual)', and `Methamphetamine (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the mixture or substance. For example, a mixture weighing 10 grams containing PCP at 50% purity contains 5 grams of PCP (actual). In the case of a mixture or substance containing PCP, amphetamine, or methamphetamine, use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of the PCP (actual), amphetamine (actual), or methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.

The terms `Hydrocodone (actual)' and `Oxycodone (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the pill, capsule, or mixture.”,

and inserting the following:

“The terms `PCP (actual)' and `Amphetamine (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the mixture or

substance. For example, a mixture weighing 10 grams containing PCP at 50% purity contains 5 grams of PCP (actual). In the case of a mixture or substance containing PCP or amphetamine, use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of the PCP (actual) or amphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.”.

and in Note (C) by striking ” `Ice,' for the purposes of this guideline, means a mixture or substance containing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of at least 80% purity” and inserting “The terms `Hydrocodone (actual)' and `Oxycodone (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the pill, capsule, or mixture”.

The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 8(D), under the heading relating to Cocaine and Other Schedule I and II Stimulants (and their immediate precursors)—

by striking the line referenced to “Ice” as follows:

“1 gm of `Ice' = 20 kg”;

and by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine and Methamphetamine (actual) as follows:

“1 gm of Methamphetamine = 2 kg

1 gm of Methamphetamine (actual) = 20 kg”,

and inserting the following line:

“1 gm of Methamphetamine = [20 kg][3,571 gm][2.5 kg][2 kg]”.

Option 2 (Using different entries for methamphetamine):

Section 2D1.1(c)(1) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• 45 KG or more of Methamphetamine, or

4.5 KG or more of Methamphetamine (actual), or

4.5 KG or more of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• 45 KG or more of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

4.5 KG or more of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

[25.2] KG or more of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(2) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 15 KG but less than 45 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 15 KG but less than 45 KG of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [8.4 KG but less than 25.2 KG] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(3) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 5 KG but less than 15 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 5 KG but less than 15 KG of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [2.8 KG but less than 8.4 KG] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(4) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 1.5 KG but less than 5 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 150 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 150 G but less than 500 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 1.5 KG but less than 5 KG of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 150 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [840 G but less than 2.8 KG] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(5) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine, or

at least 50 G but less than 150 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 50 G but less than 150 G of `Ice';”'

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 50 G but less than 150 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [280 G but less than 840 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(6) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 350 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 35 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 35 G but less than 50 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 350 G but less than 500 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 35 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [196 G but less than 280 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(7) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 200 G but less than 350 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 20 G but less than 35 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 20 G but less than 35 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 200 G but less than 350 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 20 G but less than 35 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [112 G but less than 196 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(8) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 50 G but less than 200 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 5 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 5 G but less than 20 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 50 G but less than 200 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 5 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [28 G but less than 112 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(9) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 40 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 4 G but less than 5 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 4 G but less than 5 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 40 G but less than 50 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 4 G but less than 5 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [22.4 G but less than 28 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(10) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 30 G but less than 40 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 3 G but less than 4 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 3 G but less than 4 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 30 G but less than 40 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 3 G but less than 4 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [16.8 G but less than 22.4 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(11) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 20 G but less than 30 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 2 G but less than 3 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 2 G but less than 3 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 20 G but less than 30 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 2 G but less than 3 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [11.2 G but less than 16.8 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(12) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 10 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 1 G but less than 2 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 1 G but less than 2 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 10 G but less than 20 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 1 G but less than 2 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [5.6 G but less than 11.2 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(13) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• At least 5 G but less than 10 G of Methamphetamine, or

at least 500 MG but less than 1 G of Methamphetamine (actual), or

at least 500 MG but less than 1 G of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• At least 5 G but less than 10 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

at least 500 MG but less than 1 G of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

at least [2.8 G but less than 5.6 G] of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(14) is amended by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine (actual), and “Ice” as follows:

“• Less than 5 G of Methamphetamine, or

less than 500 MG of Methamphetamine (actual), or

less than 500 MG of `Ice';”,

and inserting the following lines:

“• Less than 5 G of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies under Note (L) below), or

less than 500 MG of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies under Note (M) below), or

less than [2.8] G of Methamphetamine (in any other case);”.

The annotation to § 2D1.1(c) captioned “Notes to Drug Quantity Table” is amended—

in Note (B) by striking the following:

“The terms `PCP (actual)', `Amphetamine (actual)', and `Methamphetamine (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the mixture or substance. For example, a mixture weighing 10 grams containing PCP at 50% purity contains 5 grams of PCP (actual). In the case of a mixture or substance containing PCP, amphetamine, or methamphetamine, use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of the PCP (actual), amphetamine (actual), or methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.

The terms `Hydrocodone (actual)' and `Oxycodone (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the pill, capsule, or mixture.”,

and inserting the following:

“The terms `PCP (actual)' and `Amphetamine (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the mixture or substance. For example, a mixture weighing 10 grams containing PCP at 50% purity contains 5 grams of PCP (actual). In the case of a mixture or substance containing PCP or amphetamine, use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of the PCP (actual) or amphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.”.

in Note (C) by striking ” `Ice,' for the purposes of this guideline, means a mixture or substance containing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of at least 80% purity” and inserting “The terms `Hydrocodone (actual)' and `Oxycodone (actual)' refer to the weight of the controlled substance, itself, contained in the pill, capsule, or mixture”;

and by inserting at the end the following new Notes (L) and (M):

“(L) Use the reduced base offense level assigned to the weight of methamphetamine if [1][2][3] or more of the following factors apply:

(i) The defendant did not receive any enhancements under subsection (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(12), or (b)(14), or any adjustments under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) or § 3B1.4 (Using a Minor To Commit a Crime).

(ii) The defendant receives a reduction under subsection (b)(18).

(iii) The defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role).

(iv) The defendant was motivated to commit the offense by (I) an intimate or familial relationship, threats, fear, serious coercion, blackmail, or duress, and (II) was otherwise unlikely to commit such an offense.

(v) The defendant was unusually vulnerable to being persuaded or induced to commit the offense due to a physical or mental condition (including drug dependence or abuse), or the defendant's youthfulness at the time of the offense.

(vi) The defendant committed a single criminal occurrence or single criminal transaction that (I) was committed without significant planning, (II) was of limited duration, and (III) represents a marked deviation by the defendant from an otherwise law-abiding life.

(M) Use the heightened base offense level assigned to the weight of methamphetamine if [1][2][3] or more of the following factors apply:

(i) The defendant receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(1).

(ii) The defendant receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(2).

(iii) The defendant receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(5).

(iv) The defendant receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(12).

(v) The defendant receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(14).

(vi) The defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role).

(vii) The defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.4 (Using a Minor To Commit a Crime).

(viii) [The defendant (I) knowingly distributed methamphetamine to an individual less than [18][21] years of age and (II) was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense][The offense involved the distribution of methamphetamine to an individual less than [18][21] years of age and the defendant was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense].

(ix) The [defendant used or possessed][offense involved the use or possession of] a tableting machine or an encapsulating machine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.

(x) The [defendant used][offense involved the use of] the dark web or darknets (

i.e.,

part of the internet hidden from the general public that cannot be accessed by traditional search engines or web browsers and allows its users to hide their identity and location from other people and from law enforcement) to facilitate the commission or concealment of an offense involving methamphetamine.”.

The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 8(D), under the heading relating to Cocaine and Other Schedule I and II Stimulants (and their immediate precursors)—

by striking the line referenced to “Ice” as follows:

“1 gm of `Ice' = 20 kg”;

and by striking the lines referenced to Methamphetamine and Methamphetamine (actual) as follows:

“1 gm of Methamphetamine = 2 kg

1 gm of Methamphetamine (actual) = 20 kg”,

and inserting the following lines:

“1 gm of Methamphetamine (when reduced base offense level applies

under Note (L) of the Notes to the Drug Quantity Table) = 2 kg

1 gm of Methamphetamine (when heightened base offense level applies

under Note (M) of the Notes to the Drug Quantity Table) = 20 kg

1 gm of Methamphetamine (in any other case) = [3,571 gm]”.

Issues for Comment:

1. Part A of the proposed amendment provides two options with different approaches. Option 1 provides a single entry for all methamphetamine offenses. Option 2, by contrast, sets forth different entries for methamphetamine offenses depending on the presence of certain factors. The Commission seeks general comment on which approach, if any, is appropriate to address the 10:1 quantity ratio for methamphetamine mixture, on the one hand, and methamphetamine (actual) and “Ice,” on the other. Should the Commission use the same quantity thresholds for all methamphetamine offenses? Should the Commission instead retain different quantity thresholds for different methamphetamine offenses? For example, should the Commission set baseline quantity thresholds for methamphetamine at the current level for methamphetamine mixture or at a less severe level, and provide for heightened base offense levels if certain factors apply? Should the Commission instead set baseline quantity thresholds for methamphetamine at the current level for methamphetamine (actual) or at a more severe level, and provide for reduced base offense levels if certain factors apply?

2. Option 1 brackets four alternatives for the quantity thresholds for all methamphetamine offenses: (1) quantity thresholds matching those of methamphetamine mixture; (2) quantity thresholds matching those of fentanyl; (3) quantity thresholds matching those of cocaine base; and (4) quantity thresholds matching those of methamphetamine (actual). What quantity thresholds should the Commission adopt for methamphetamine, and why? Should the Commission adopt quantity thresholds for methamphetamine that are less severe than the current levels for methamphetamine mixture (

e.g.,

quantity thresholds matching those of cocaine)?

3. Option 2 brackets setting the baseline quantity thresholds that trigger base offense levels for methamphetamine at the same level as cocaine base. These base offense levels could be reduced or heightened depending on the presence of certain factors. Should the Commission adopt a different baseline quantity threshold for methamphetamine? What is the basis for adopting any such baseline quantity threshold? Should the Commission adopt a different heightened or reduced base offense level? What is the basis for adopting any such heightened or reduced base offense level?

4. Option 2 sets forth factors that would result in the application of reduced or heightened base offense levels. The Commission seeks comment on whether the factors provided in Option 2 are appropriate to trigger a reduced or heightened base offense level. Should any factors be deleted or changed? Should the Commission provide additional or different factors? How many factors should be present in the offense to trigger the application of the reduced or heightened base offense levels?

5. The Commission seeks comment on whether using the factors set forth in Option 2 to trigger reduced or heightened base offense levels results in any inappropriate double-counting. If so, what action should the Commission take to account for the interaction between these factors and the applicable base offense level?

6. Some of the factors set forth in Option 2 are not specific offense characteristics or adjustments in the

Guidelines Manual.

If the Commission includes factors that are not in the

Guidelines Manual,

will it result in any fact-finding or administrability issues?

7. Both options would delete all references in § 2D1.1 to “Ice” and add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(19) that provides a [2]-level reduction if the offense involved only methamphetamine in a non-smokable, non-crystalline form. This new specific offense characteristic is intended to ensure compliance with the 1990 congressional directive (Pub. L. 101-67, 2701 (1990)). The Commission invites comment on whether the Commission should take an alternative approach to ensure compliance with the 1990 congressional directive.

(B) Fentanyl-Related Substances

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

The Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (Pub. L. 119-26) (2025) (“HALT Fentanyl Act”) permanently scheduled “fentanyl-related substances” as Schedule I substances under 21 U.S.C. 812. The Act also expanded the offenses prohibited by 21 U.S.C. 841 and 960 to include “fentanyl-related substances,” setting the quantities that

trigger mandatory minimum penalties at the same level as fentanyl analogues. The Act defined “fentanyl-related substances” as

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), except as provided in paragraph (3), the term “fentanyl-related substance” means any substance that is structurally related to fentanyl by 1 or more of the following modifications:

(A) By replacement of the phenyl portion of the phenethyl group by any monocycle, whether or not further substituted in or on the monocycle.

(B) By substitution in or on the phenethyl group with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, hydroxyl, halo, haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups.

(C) By substitution in or on the piperidine ring with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, ester, ether, hydroxyl, halo, haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups.

(D) By replacement of the aniline ring with any aromatic monocycle whether or not further substituted in or on the aromatic monocycle.

(E) By replacement of the N-propionyl group with another acyl group.

(3) A substance that satisfies the definition of the term “fentanyl-related substance” in paragraph (2) shall nonetheless not be treated as a fentanyl-related substance subject to this schedule if the substance—

(A) is controlled by action of the Attorney General under section 201; or

(B) is otherwise expressly listed in a schedule other than this schedule.

Public Law 119-26, 2 (2025). The HALT Fentanyl Act does not contain any directives to the Commission.

Part B of the proposed amendment would amend the Drug Quantity Table at subsection (c) § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) and the Drug Equivalency Tables at Application Note 8(D) of the Commentary to § 2D1.1 to add “fentanyl-related substance.” It would set the quantity thresholds and base offense levels at the same level as fentanyl analogues. Part B of the proposed amendment would also amend the Notes to the Drug Quantity Table to add a definition of “fentanyl-related substance” that closely tracks the statutory definition.

In addition, Part B of the proposed amendment would add “fentanyl-related substance” to the enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(13) for representing or marketing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue as another substance or as a legitimately manufactured drug.

An issue for comment is also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2D1.1(b)(13) is amended by striking “fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue” both places it appear and inserting “fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide), a fentanyl analogue, or a fentanyl-related substance”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(1) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• 9 KG or more of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(2) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 3 KG but less than 9 KG of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(3) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 1 KG but less than 3 KG of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(4) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 300 G but less than 1 KG of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(5) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 100 G but less than 300 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(6) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 70 G but less than 100 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(7) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 40 G but less than 70 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(8) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 10 G but less than 40 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(9) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 8 G but less than 10 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(10) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 6 G but less than 8 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(11) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 4 G but less than 6 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(12) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 2 G but less than 4 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(13) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• At least 1 G but less than 2 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

Section 2D1.1(c)(14) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“• Less than 1 G of a Fentanyl-Related Substance;”.

The annotation to § 2D1.1(c) captioned “Notes to Drug Quantity Table” is amended—

by redesignating Note (K) as Note (L);

and by inserting after Note (J) the following new Note (K):

“(K) Fentanyl-Related Substance, for purposes of this guideline, means any substance (including any salt, isomer, or salt of isomer thereof) that is structurally related to fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) by one or more of the following modifications:

(i) By replacement of the phenyl portion of the phenethyl group by any monocycle, whether or not further substituted in or on the monocycle.

(ii) By substitution in or on the phenethyl group with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, hydroxyl, halo, haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups.

(iii) By substitution in or on the piperidine ring with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, ester, ether, hydroxyl, halo, haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups.

(iv) By replacement of the aniline ring with any aromatic monocycle whether or not further substituted in or on the aromatic monocycle.

(v) By replacement of the N-propionyl group with another acyl group.

A substance that satisfies the definition of `fentanyl-related substance' shall nonetheless not be treated as a fentanyl-related substance if the substance is controlled by action of the Attorney General under 21 U.S.C. 811 or is otherwise expressly listed in a schedule other that Schedule I.”.

The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 8(D), under the heading relating to Schedule I or II Opiates by inserting after the line referenced to a Fentanyl Analogue the following line:

“1 gm of a Fentanyl-Related Substance = 10 kg”.

Issue for Comment:

1. The Halt all Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (Pub. L. 119-26) (2025) (“HALT Fentanyl Act”) set the quantities of “fentanyl-related substances” that trigger mandatory minimum penalties at the same level as fentanyl analogues. In response to this, Part B of the amendment would set the quantity thresholds and base offense levels for fentanyl-related substances at

the same level as fentanyl analogues. The Commission invites comment on whether this is the appropriate approach. Should the quantity thresholds and base offense levels for fentanyl-related substances instead be set at the same level as fentanyl, another substance in the Drug Quantity Table, or some other level entirely? If so, why? How are fentanyl-related substances similar to or different from other substances in the Drug Quantity Table, including fentanyl or fentanyl analogues? How do the effects of fentanyl-related substances compare with the effects of other substances in the Drug Quantity Table, including fentanyl or fentanyl analogues?

(C) Enhancements for Offenses Involving Fentanyl or Fentanyl Analogues

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

Fentanyl and fentanyl analogue cases have increased substantially over the last several years. Since fiscal year 2020, fentanyl cases have increased 255.7 percent, such that they comprised 20.2 percent of all federal drug trafficking cases in fiscal year 2024. Today, fentanyl represents the second most common drug type in federal drug trafficking cases. Fentanyl analogue cases occupy a much smaller portion of the federal drug trafficking caseload (1.9%), but those cases have increased 85.2 percent since fiscal year 2020.

In response to rising numbers of fentanyl and fentanyl analogue cases, the Commission previously undertook a multi-year study of synthetic controlled substances. In 2018, following that study, the Commission amended § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit Those Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) to add an enhancement specific to fentanyl and fentanyl analogue cases. In particular, the Commission added a new specific offense characteristic at subsection (b)(13) providing a 4-level increase when the defendant knowingly misrepresented or knowingly marketed as another substance a mixture or substance containing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue.

See

USSG, App. C. amend. 807 (effective Nov. 1, 2018). In adding this new specific offense characteristic, the Commission pointed to the harm attendant to cases where a user does not know the substance they are using contains fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue.

Id.

As the Commission explained, “[b]ecause of fentanyl's extreme potency, the risk of overdose death is great, particularly when the user is inexperienced or unaware of what substance he or she is using.”

Id.

Thus, the Commission concluded that “it is appropriate for traffickers who knowingly misrepresent fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue as another substance to receive additional punishment.”

Id.

In 2023, the Commission amended § 2D1.1(b)(13) based on the continued increase in fentanyl and fentanyl analogue distribution.

See

USSG, App. C. amend. 818 (effective Nov. 1, 2023). The amendment added a new subparagraph (B) with an alternative 2-level enhancement for offenses where the defendant represented or marketed as a legitimately manufactured drug another mixture or substance containing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue, and acted with willful blindness or conscious avoidance of knowledge that such mixture or substance was not the legitimately manufactured drug.

Id.

As grounds for the amendment, the Commission cited data from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) showing a substantial increase in the seizure of fake prescription pills.

Id.

The DEA reported seizing over 50.6 million fake pills in calendar year 2022, with 70 percent containing fentanyl.

Id.

Of those seized pills containing fentanyl, six out of ten contained a potentially lethal dose of the substance.

Id.

The Commission also pointed to the increase in drug overdose deaths—most of which involved synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl.

Id.

In 2025, the Commission amended § 2D1.1(b)(13)(B) to change the

mens rea

requirement.

See

USSG, App. C. amend. 833 (effective Nov. 1, 2025). The Commission received comment that § 2D1.1(b)(13)(B) was being applied inconsistently, in part, because the

mens rea

requirement generated confusion. In particular, commenters urged the Commission to revise § 2D1.1(b)(13)(B) because the mental state of “willful blindness or conscious avoidance of knowledge” was vague, and courts construed willful blindness as legally equivalent to knowledge, causing uncertainty over when the enhancement should be applied. The Commission further heard concerns about the continuing dangers associated with representing or marketing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue as a legitimately manufactured drug. Informed by those concerns, the Commission changed the

mens rea

requirement in § 2D1.1(b)(13)(B) from “willful blindness or conscious avoidance of knowledge” to “reckless disregard.”

The Commission has continued to receive comment on whether the guidelines appropriately account for factors specific to offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Earlier this year, the Commission sought public comment on several amendments proposed by the Department of Justice to address the harm in cases involving fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and other opioids.

See

U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Request for public comment,” 90 FR 8840 (Feb. 3, 2025);

see also

Letter from Scott Meisler,

Ex-Officio

Member, U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, to Hon. Carlton W. Reeves, Chair, U.S. Sent'g Comm'n (July 15, 2024) at 5, available at

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/public-comment/202407/89FR48029_public-comment_R.pdf.

Specifically, the Commission sought comment on whether it should create enhancements under § 2D1.1 for: (1) distribution of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and other opioids to individuals under the age of 21; (2) fentanyl, fentanyl analogue, and opioid offenses involving the use of the dark web or other anonymizing technologies; and (3) drug trafficking offenses involving fentanyl or another synthetic opioid adulterated with xylazine or medetomidine. Some commenters supported the proposed enhancements or asked the Commission to expand the enhancements to apply more broadly, while others opposed the proposed enhancements or asked the Commission to limit the enhancements to apply more narrowly.

In response to these concerns, Part C of the proposed amendment would amend § 2D1.1 to add four new specific offense characteristics that increase offense levels in fentanyl and fentanyl analogue trafficking cases involving certain factors. The Commission is considering each of these specific offense characteristics individually and whether to promulgate any of these specific offense characteristics or a combination of them.

First, Part C of the proposed amendment would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(14) relating to the distribution of fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue to an individual less than [18][21] years of age or the use or attempted use of an individual less than [18][21] years of age to commit an offense involving such substance. For this enhancement to apply, the defendant must be, at the time of the offense, [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than the individual less than [18][21] years of age. Part C brackets alternatives for making the enhancement defendant-based or offense-based. The defendant-based alternative of this enhancement also brackets a

mens rea

requirement of knowledge relating to the age of the individual and to the substance involved in the offense.

Second, Part C of the proposed amendment would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(15) relating to the use of the dark web or darknets to facilitate the commission or concealment of an offense involving fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue. It also brackets alternatives for making the enhancement defendant-based or offense-based.

Third, Part C of the proposed amendment would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(16) relating to the distribution of a mixture or substance containing (A) fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue and (B) xylazine. It brackets alternatives for making the enhancement defendant-based or offense-based.

Finally, Part C of the proposed amendment would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(17) relating to the use or possession of a tableting machine or an encapsulating machine for the purpose of manufacturing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue. It brackets alternatives for making the enhancement defendant-based or offense-based.

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

[Part C of the proposed amendment would insert any, a combination, or all of the following paragraphs to § 2D1.1(b) and redesignate current paragraphs (14) through (18) accordingly. In addition, it would make conforming changes in accordance with the redesignation of these paragraphs.]

Section 2D1.1(b) is amended by inserting the following new paragraph(s):

“(14) [If the defendant[, knowing that an individual was less than [18][21] years of age and that the substance involved in the offense was fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue]—

(A) (i) distributed fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue to that individual, and (ii) the defendant was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense; or

(B) (i) used or attempted to use that individual to commit an offense involving fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, and (ii) the defendant was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense,

increase by [2][4] levels. For purposes of subsection (b)(14)(B), `used or attempted to use' includes directing, commanding, encouraging, intimidating, counseling, training, procuring, recruiting, or soliciting.]

[If the offense involved—

(A) (i) the distribution of fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue to an individual less than [18][21] years of age, and (ii) the defendant was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense; or

(B) (i) using or attempting to use an individual less than [18][21] years of age to commit an offense involving fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, and (ii) the defendant was [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than that individual at the time of the offense,

increase by [2][4] levels. For purposes of subsection (b)(14)(B), `using or attempting to use' includes directing, commanding, encouraging, intimidating, counseling, training, procuring, recruiting, or soliciting.]

(15) If [the defendant used][the offense involved the use of] the dark web or darknets (

i.e.,

part of the internet hidden from the general public that cannot be accessed by traditional search engines or web browsers and allows its users to hide their identity and location from other people and from law enforcement) to facilitate the commission or concealment of an offense involving fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, increase by [2][4] levels.

(16) [If the defendant knowingly distributed a mixture or substance containing (A) fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, and (B) xylazine, increase by [2][4] levels.]

[If the offense involved distribution of a mixture or substance containing (A) fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, and (B) xylazine, increase by [2][4] levels.]

(17) If (A) subsection (b)(13) does not apply and (B) [the defendant used or possessed][the offense involved the use or possession of] a tableting machine or an encapsulating machine for the purpose of manufacturing fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide) or a fentanyl analogue, increase by [2][4]levels.”.

The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by inserting the following new Note 18:

“18.

Application of Subsection (b)(14).

—

(A)

Interaction with Subsection (b)(20).

—Do not apply subsection (b)(14) if subsection (b)(20)(B) also applies.

(B)

Interaction with Chapter Three Adjustment.

—If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(14) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under § 3B1.4 (Using a Minor to Commit a Crime), do not apply that adjustment under § 3B1.4.”.

[Part C of the proposed amendment would renumber current notes 18 through 26 accordingly. In addition, it would make conforming changes in accordance with the redesignation of these notes.]

Issues for Comment:

1. Part C of the proposed amendment would amend § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) to add four new specific offense characteristics that increase offense levels in fentanyl and fentanyl analogue trafficking cases involving certain factors. The Commission invites general comment on whether the proposed enhancements are appropriate to address the factors involved in fentanyl and fentanyl analogue trafficking cases, including the harm and the culpability of the defendants in these cases. If not, should the Commission take another approach to address these factors?

2. The proposed specific offense characteristics set forth in Part C of the proposed amendment would apply to offenses involving fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue. Part B of the proposed amendment would add references to “fentanyl-related substances” to the Drug Quantity Table and Drug Conversion Tables in § 2D1.1. If the Commission were to promulgate Part B of the proposed amendment, should the Commission also add fentanyl-related substances to the proposed specific offense characteristics set forth in this Part?

3. The proposed enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(14) for offenses involving distributing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue to an individual less than [18][21] years of age, or using an individual less than [18][21] years of age in the offense, contains a condition requiring that the defendant must be [at least [4][6][8] years older][substantially older] than the individual less than [18][21] years of age. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should include such a requirement. Is the requirement appropriate to address cases involving a defendant who is a peer or similar in age to an individual less than [18][21] years of age? If not,

what changes should the Commission make to the proposed enhancement?

4. The Commission published a proposed amendment setting forth a new Chapter Three adjustment at § 3C1.5 addressing offenses involving sophisticated means. If the Commission were to promulgate such an adjustment, should it affect the Commission's consideration of the proposed enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(15) relating to the use of the dark web or darknets? If so, how?

5. Part C of the proposed amendment would add a new specific offense characteristic at § 2D1.1(b)(16) relating to the distribution of a mixture or substance containing (A) fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue and (B) xylazine. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed enhancement is appropriate. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other adulterants with similar effects (

e.g.,

medetomidine) to which the enhancement should apply.

6. The proposed enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(17) provides that this enhancement shall not apply if the enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(13) applies. The Commission seeks comment on the interaction between these two enhancements. Does the proposed enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(17) capture conduct and harm that the current enhancement at § 2D1.1(b)(13) does not?

2. Inflationary Adjustments

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

This proposed amendment is a result of the Commission's work in examining § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) and related guidelines to consider whether the loss table should be revised to simplify application or to adjust for inflation.

See

U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Notice of Final Priorities,” 90 FR 39263 (Aug. 14, 2025). As part of that work, the Commission is considering whether to adjust all monetary tables and values in the guidelines for inflation.

The monetary tables and values in the guidelines, including the monetary values in the fine tables for individual defendants and for organizational defendants, were last revised to account for inflation in 2015.

See

USSG App. C, amend. 791 (effective Nov. 1, 2015). The proposed amendment would amend the monetary tables in the guidelines to adjust for inflation,

i.e.,

the tables in §§ 2B1.1 (Theft, Property, Destruction, and Fraud), 2B2.1 (Burglary), 2B3.1 (Robbery), 2R1.1 (Bid-Rigging, Price-Fixing or Market-Allocation Agreements Among Competitors), 2T4.1 (Tax Table), 5E1.2 (Fines for Individual Defendants), and 8C2.4 (Base Fine). The proposed amendment would adjust the monetary tables and values in the guidelines using a specific multiplier derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index and then would round the amounts using a set of rules extrapolated from the provisions for adjusting monetary penalties for inflation set forth in section 5(a) of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. This is the same methodology the Commission used in 2015.

See

USSG App. C, amend. 791 (effective Nov. 1, 2015).

In addition, the proposed amendment adjusts for inflation the monetary value in specific offense characteristics in other Chapter Two guidelines and includes conforming changes to guidelines that refer to the monetary tables.

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2B1.1(b)(1) is amended by striking the following:

“If the loss exceeded $6,500, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $6,500 or less

no increase

(B) More than$6,500

add 2

(C) More than $15,000

add 4

(D) More than $40,000

add 6

(E) More than $95,000

add 8

(F) More than $150,000

add 10

(G) More than $250,000

add 12

(H) More than $550,000

add 14

(I) More than $1,500,000

add 16

(J) More than $3,500,000

add 18

(K) More than $9,500,000

add 20

(L) More than $25,000,000

add 22

(M) More than $65,000,000

add 24

(N) More than $150,000,000

add 26

(O) More than $250,000,000

add 28

(P) More than $550,000,000

add 30.”;

and inserting the following:

“If the loss exceeded $9,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $9,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $9,000

add 2

(C) More than $20,000

add 4

(D) More than $55,000

add 6

(E) More than $150,000

add 8

(F) More than $200,000

add 10

(G) More than $350,000

add 12

(H) More than $750,000

add 14

(I) More than $2,000,000

add 16

(J) More than $5,000,000

add 18

(K) More than $15,000,000

add 20

(L) More than $35,000,000

add 22

(M) More than $90,000,000

add 24

(N) More than $200,000,000

add 26

(O) More than $350,000,000

add 28

(P) More than $750,000,000

add 30.”.

Section 2B1.4(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$9,000”.

Section 2B1.5 is amended by striking “If the value of the cultural heritage resource or paleontological resource (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the value of the cultural heritage resource or paleontological resource (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B2.1(b)(2) is amended by striking the following:

“If the loss exceeded $5,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $5,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $5,000

add 1

(C) More than $20,000

add 2

(D) More than $95,000

add 3

(E) More than $500,000

add 4

(F) More than $1,500,000

add 5

(G) More than $3,000,000

add 6

(H) More than $5,000,000

add 7

(I) More than $9,500,000

add 8.”;

and inserting the following:

“If the loss exceeded $7,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $7,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $7,000

add 1

(C) More than $25,000

add 2

(D) More than $150,000

add 3

(E) More than $700,000

add 4

(F) More than $2,000,000

add 5

(G) More than $4,000,000

add 6

(H) More than $7,000,000

add 7

(I) More than $15,000,000

add 8.”.

Section 2B2.3(b)(3) is amended by striking “If (A) the offense involved invasion of a protected computer; and (B) the loss resulting from the invasion (i) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (ii) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If (A) the offense involved invasion of a protected computer; and (B) the loss resulting from the invasion (i) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (ii) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B3.1 is amended by striking the following:

“If the loss exceeded $20,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $20,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $20,000

add 1

(C) More than $95,000

add 2

(D) More than $500,000

add 3

(E) More than $1,500,000

add 4

(F) More than $3,000,000

add 5

(G) More than $5,000,000

add 6

(H) More than $9,500,000

add 7.”;

and inserting the following:

“If the loss exceeded $25,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $25,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $25,000

add 1

(C) More than $150,000

add 2

(D) More than $700,000

add 3

(E) More than $2,000,000

add 4

(F) More than $4,000,000

add 5

(G) More than $7,000,000

add 6

(H) More than $15,000,000

add 7.”.

Section 2B3.2(b)(2) is amended by striking “$20,000” and inserting “$25,000”.

Section 2B3.3(b)(1) is amended by striking “If the greater of the amount obtained or demanded (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the greater of the amount obtained or demanded (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B4.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “If the greater of the value of the bribe or the improper benefit to be conferred (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the greater of the value of the bribe or the improper benefit to be conferred (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B5.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “If the face value of the counterfeit items (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the face value of the counterfeit items (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B5.3(b)(1) is amended by striking “If the infringement amount (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the infringement amount (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2B6.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “If the retail value of the motor vehicles or parts (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the retail value of the motor vehicles or parts (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2C1.1(b)(2) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$9,000”.

Section 2C1.2(b)(2) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$9,000”.

Section 2C1.8(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$9,000”.

Section 2E5.1(b)(2) is amended by striking “If the value of the prohibited payment or the value of the improper benefit to the payer, whichever is greater (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the value of the prohibited payment or the value of the improper benefit to the payer, whichever is greater (A) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2Q2.1(b)(3)(A) is amended by striking “If the market value of the fish, wildlife, or plants (i) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (ii) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount” and inserting “If the market value of the fish, wildlife, or plants (i) exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $9,000, increase by 1 level; or (ii) exceeded $9,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount”.

Section 2R1.1 is amended by striking the following:

“If the volume of commerce attributable to the defendant was more than $1,000,000, adjust the offense level as follows:

Volume of commerce

(apply the greatest)

Adjustment to

offense level

(A) More than $1,000,000

add 2

(B) More than $10,000,000

add 4

(C) More than $50,000,000

add 6

(D) More than $100,000,000

add 8

(E) More than $300,000,000

add 10

(F) More than $600,000,000

add 12

(G) More than $1,200,000,000

add 14

(H) More than $1,850,000,000

add 16.”;

and inserting the following:

“If the volume of commerce attributable to the defendant was more than $1,500,000, adjust the offense level as follows:

Volume of commerce

(apply the greatest)

Adjustment to

offense level

(A) More than $1,500,000

add 2

(B) More than $15,000,000

add 4

(C) More than $70,000,000

add 6

(D) More than $150,000,000

add 8

(E) More than $400,000,000

add 10

(F) More than $800,000,000

add 12

(G) More than $1,650,000,000

add 14

(H) More than $2,500,000,000

add 16.”.

Section 2T3.1(a) is amended—

in paragraph (1) by striking “$1,500” and inserting “$2,000”;

in paragraph (2) by striking “$200” and inserting “$300”; and by striking “$1,500” and inserting “$2,000”;

and in paragraph (3) by striking “$200” and inserting “$300”.

Section 2T4.1 is amended by striking the following:

Tax loss

(apply the greatest)

Offense level

(A) $2,500 or less

6

(B) More than $2,500

8

(C) More than $6,500

10

(D) More than $15,000

12

(E) More than $40,000

14

(F) More than $100,000

16

(G) More than $250,000

18

(H) More than $550,000

20

(I) More than $1,500,000

22

(J) More than $3,500,000

24

(K) More than $9,500,000

26

(L) More than $25,000,000

28

(M) More than $65,000,000

30

(N) More than $150,000,000

32

(O) More than $250,000,000

34

(P) More than $550,000,000

36.”;

and inserting the following:

Tax loss

(apply the greatest)

Offense level

(A) $3,500 or less

6

(B) More than $3,500

8

(C) More than $9,000

10

(D) More than $20,000

12

(E) More than $55,000

14

(F) More than $150,000

16

(G) More than $350,000

18

(H) More than $750,000

20

(I) More than $2,000,000

22

(J) More than $5,000,000

24

(K) More than $15,000,000

26

(L) More than $35,000,000

28

(M) More than $90,000,000

30

(N) More than $200,000,000

32

(O) More than $350,000,000

34

(P) More than $750,000,000

36.”.

Section 5E1.2 is amended—

by striking the following:

Fine Table

Offense level

A

Minimum

B

Maximum

3 and below

$200

$9,500

4-5

500

9,500

6-7

1,000

9,500

8-9

2,000

20,000

10-11

4,000

40,000

12-13

5,500

55,000

14-15

7,500

75,000

16-17

10,000

95,000

18-19

10,000

100,000

20-22

15,000

150,000

23-25

20,000

200,000

26-28

25,000

250,000

29-31

30,000

300,000

32-34

35,000

350,000

35-37

40,000

400,000

38 and above

50,000

500,000.”;

and inserting the following:

Fine Table

Offense level

A

Minimum

B

Maximum

3 and below

$300

$15,000

4-5

700

15,000

6-7

1,500

15,000

8-9

2,500

25,000

10-11

5,500

55,000

12-13

7,500

75,000

14-15

10,000

100,000

16-17

15,000

150,000

18-19

15,000

150,000

20-22

20,000

200,000

23-25

25,000

250,000

26-28

35,000

350,000

29-31

40,000

400,000

32-34

50,000

500,000

35-37

55,000

550,000

38 and above

70,000

700,000.”;

and in subsection (h)—

in the heading by striking “Instruction” and inserting “Instructions”;

and by inserting at the end the following new paragraph (2):

“(2) For offenses committed on or after November 1, 2015 but prior to November 1, 2026, use the applicable fine guideline range that was set forth in the version of § 5E1.2(c) that was in effect on November 1, 2025, rather than the applicable fine guideline range set forth in subsection (c) above.”.

Section 8C2.4 is amended—

in subsection (d) by striking the following:

Offense level

Amount

6 or less

$8,500

7

15,000

8

15,000

9

25,000

10

35,000

11

50,000

12

70,000

13

100,000

14

150,000

15

200,000

16

300,000

17

450,000

18

600,000

19

850,000

20

1,000,000

21

1,500,000

22

2,000,000

23

3,000,000

24

3,500,000

25

5,000,000

26

6,500,000

27

8,500,000

28

10,000,000

29

15,000,000

30

20,000,000

31

25,000,000

32

30,000,000

33

40,000,000

34

50,000,000

35

65,000,000

36

80,000,000

37

100,000,000

38 or more

150,000,000.”;

and inserting the following:

Offense level

Amount

6 or less

$10,000

7

20,000

8

20,000

9

35,000

10

50,000

11

70,000

12

95,000

13

150,000

14

200,000

15

250,000

16

400,000

17

600,000

18

800,000

19

1,000,000

20

1,500,000

21

2,000,000

22

2,500,000

23

4,000,000

24

5,000,000

25

7,000,000

26

9,000,000

27

10,000,000

28

15,000,000

29

20,000,000

30

25,000,000

31

35,000,000

32

40,000,000

33

55,000,000

34

70,000,000

35

90,000,000

36

100,000,000

37

150,000,000

38 or more

200,000,000.”;

and in subsection (e)—

in the heading by striking “Instruction” and inserting “Instructions”;

and by inserting at the end the following new paragraph (2):

“(2) For offenses committed on or after November 1, 2015 but prior to November 1, 2026, use the offense level fine table that was set forth in the version of § 8C2.4(d) that was in effect on November 1, 2025, rather than the offense level fine table set forth in subsection (d) above.”.

Issues for Comment

1. The Commission seeks comment on whether the monetary tables in the guidelines should be adjusted for inflation. The monetary tables set forth in the proposed amendment relate to a variety of different offenses and apply to a number of different criminal statutes. Given the difference between the types of offenses, should all monetary tables be adjusted for inflation? Do the types of offenses or statutory provisions related to any of the monetary tables suggest that it should not be adjusted for inflation?

2. The Commission seeks comment on whether the monetary tables in the guidelines should be adjusted on a regular basis, such as on an annual, five-year, or ten-year basis, or at particular inflationary measures, such as when $1.00 in the year the table was last adjusted has the same buying power as $1.25 or $1.33 or $1.50 in the current year? Should the Commission incorporate directly into the guidelines a mechanism for automatically adjusting for inflation? Would the incorporation of such a mechanism be consistent with the Commission's statutory authority?

3. Economic Crimes

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

In August 2025, the Commission identified as one of its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2026, “[e]xamination of § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) and related guidelines to ensure the guidelines appropriately reflect the culpability of the individual and the harm to the victim, including [] reassessing the role of actual loss, intended loss, and gain[, ] considering whether the loss table in § 2B1.1 should be revised to simplify application or to adjust for inflation,” and “possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.” U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Notice of Final Priorities,” 90 FR 39263 (Aug. 14, 2025).

This proposed amendment contains two parts (Parts A and B). The Commission is considering whether to promulgate either or both of these parts, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Part A

of the proposed amendment would restructure the loss table at § 2B1.1(b)(1) to simplify application of the table. Issues for comment are also provided.

Part B

of the proposed amendment would amend existing specific offense characteristics (SOCs) and add new SOCs to § 2B1.1 to reflect the culpability of the individual and harm to the victim. Issues for comment are also provided.

(A) Restructuring the Loss Table

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

The loss table at § 2B1.1(b)(1) provides a tiered enhancement based on the amount of loss resulting from the offense. Currently, there are 16 levels resulting in either no increase or an increase of up to 30 levels.

The Commission has received comment from some stakeholders advocating revising the loss table to simplify application and reduce the fact-finding burden on courts. Part A of the proposed amendment seeks to accomplish this by reducing the number of levels in the table. By reducing the number of levels in the table, the Commission seeks to ease the court's burden in cases involving a loss amount near the margins of two levels.

As a starting point, Part A of the proposed amendment restructures the loss table with wider ranges based on an analysis of the loss amount attributed to each sentenced individual in fiscal year 2024, creating five groups (or quintiles), with the loss amount for each group representing approximately 20 percent of the individuals sentenced under § 2B1.1.

For individuals sentenced in fiscal year 2024, the data show that for approximately 20 percent of individuals sentenced under § 2B1.1, the offense involved $15,000 or less of loss, resulting in either no enhancement or a 2-level enhancement; approximately 20 percent involved between $15,000 and $95,000, resulting in a 4- or 6-level enhancement; approximately 20 percent involved between $95,000 and $250,000, resulting in an 8- or 10-level enhancement; approximately 20 percent involved between $250,000 and $1,500,000, resulting in a 12- or 14-level enhancement; and approximately 20 percent involved more than $1,500,000 of loss, resulting in an enhancement ranging from 16 to 30-levels.

Part A of the proposed amendment would consolidate the loss table so that each of the first five levels would account for approximately 20 percent (a quintile) of cases sentenced under § 2B1.1 as reflected by the data described above. It also brackets the possibility of amending the offense level enhancement associated with each category. Under the revised table, offenses involving $15,000 of loss or less would receive no increase, offenses involving more than $15,000 of loss would receive a [4]-level increase, offenses involving more than $95,000 of loss would receive an [8]-level increase, offenses involving more than $250,000 of loss would receive a [12]-level increase, and offenses involving more than $1,500,000 of loss would receive a [16]-level increase.

The revised table retains the loss categories in the top quintile for offenses involving more than $9,500,000, $65,000,000, and $250,000,000 while bracketing the possibility of amending the associated offense level enhancements. These categories are retained to provide an offense level increase for individuals with the highest loss amounts.

The proposed amendment includes conforming changes to guidelines that refer to the loss table at § 2B1.1.

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2B1.1 is amended by striking the following:

“If the loss exceeded $6,500, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $6,500 or less

no increase

(B) More than $6,500

add 2

(C) More than $15,000

add 4

(D) More than $40,000

add 6

(E) More than $95,000

add 8

(F) More than $150,000

add 10

(G) More than $250,000

add 12

(H) More than $550,000

add 14

(I) More than $1,500,000

add 16

(J) More than $3,500,000

add 18

(K) More than $9,500,000

add 20

(L) More than $25,000,000

add 22

(M) More than $65,000,000

add 24

(N) More than $150,000,000

add 26

(O) More than $250,000,000

add 28

(P) More than $550,000,000

add 30.”;

and inserting the following:

“If the loss exceeded $15,000, increase the offense level as follows:

Loss (apply the greatest)

Increase in level

(A) $15,000 or less

no increase

(B) More than $15,000

add [4]

(C) More than $95,000

add [8]

(D) More than $250,000

add [12]

(E) More than $1,500,000

add [16]

(F) More than $9,500,000

add [20]

(G) More than $65,000,000

add [24]

(H) More than $250,000,000

add [28].”.

Section 2B1.4(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B1.5(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B2.3(b)(3) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B3.3(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B4.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B5.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B5.3(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2B6.1(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2C1.1(b)(2) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2C1.2(b)(2) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2C1.8(b)(1) is amended by striking “$6,500” and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2E5.1(b)(2) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Section 2Q2.1(b)(3)(A) is amended by striking “$6,500” both places such term appears and inserting “$15,000”.

Issues for Comment

1. The Commission seeks comment on whether the restructured loss table sufficiently accounts for the financial harm in economic crime offenses. Would the proposed revisions to the loss table advance the Commission's goals of simplifying application and reducing the court's fact-finding burden? What are the advantages and disadvantages of broader categories of loss? Are there other approaches the Commission should consider?

2. Part A of the proposed amendment would amend the loss table by establishing a loss exceeding $15,000 as the threshold to trigger an enhancement. The Commission seeks comment on whether this amount is the appropriate threshold to trigger an enhancement under the table. If not, what amount should it be?

3. Part A of the proposed amendment would maintain the offense level enhancement associated with each of the remaining loss categories. The Commission seeks comment on whether the offense level enhancements should be revised to account for the restructuring of the loss table. If so, how should they be revised? That is, what is the increase in offense level that should result from each loss category?

(B) Culpability Factors

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

A wide variety of economic crimes are referenced to § 2B1.1. To account for the range of conduct, § 2B1.1 contains 20 specific offense characteristics (SOCs) and four cross-references to other guidelines.

Among the 20 SOCs is a provision providing a tiered enhancement based on the number of victims and the level of financial hardship to those victims resulting from the offense. USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2). There is also an enhancement if the individual committed the offense using “sophisticated means.” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C).

The Commission has heard from some stakeholders that § 2B1.1 does not appropriately reflect the culpability of sentenced individuals or the harm experienced by the victims. Specifically, some stakeholders have suggested that the guidelines should measure an individual's culpability by considering the non-economic harm to victims, in addition to the economic impact and number of victims. Additionally, some stakeholders have asked the Commission to consider amending the sophisticated means enhancement because, in their view, the enhancement

is applied too broadly and for conduct that is not complex or intricate. These stakeholders suggest that the enhancement is often based on conduct that is inherent in economic crime offenses and therefore is captured by the base offense level. Some stakeholders have also noted that the enhancement is not applied uniformly because the guidelines do not provide a clear standard. Some stakeholders have also expressed concern that § 2B1.1 does not adequately account for mitigating factors for individuals with limited involvement in the offense.

Part B of the proposed amendment seeks to address these concerns.

Part B of the proposed amendment would create a new specific offense characteristic at § 2B1.1(b)(3) by adding an enhancement for offenses that resulted in substantial non-economic harm to one or more victims. The amendment brackets the possibility of a 2-, 3-, or 4-level enhancement. It would also provide a list of examples of “non-economic harm,” including physical harm, psychological harm, emotional trauma, harm to reputation or credit rating, and invasion of privacy.

Part B of the proposed amendment would amend the sophisticated means enhancement at renumbered § 2B1.1(b)(11). It would revise the definition of “sophisticated means” to mean “committing or concealing an offense with a greater level of complexity than typical for an offense of that nature” and provide further guidance for courts to use when determining whether conduct fits the definition. Additionally, the definition of “United States,” as it applies to the provision, would be moved from the commentary to the text of the guideline.

Part B of the proposed amendment would also add two mitigating factors. The first would provide for a [2]-level decrease if the defendant committed the offense at the direction of his or her employer for fear of negative employment consequences; was motivated by an intimate or familial relationship or by threats or fear to commit the offense and was otherwise unlikely to commit such an offense; or was unusually vulnerable to being persuaded or induced to commit the offense due to a physical or mental condition. The second mitigating factor would provide for a tiered decrease based on whether, prior to the defendant's knowledge of the criminal investigation or prosecution for the offense, the defendant voluntarily ceased the criminal activity, made efforts to return the money or property to the victim, or reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities.

Additionally, the § 2B1.1 specific offense characteristics vary widely in frequency of use. As part of its ongoing efforts to simplify the

Guidelines Manual,

the Commission is considering deleting three specific offense characteristics that courts have applied infrequently (fewer than 1% of cases) in the last five fiscal years: § 2B1.1(b)(3), (4), and (13).

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2B1.1(b) is amended—

by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (20) as paragraphs (4) through (21), respectively;

by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph (3):

“(3) If the offense resulted in substantial non-economic harm to one or more victims, increase by [2][3][4] levels. For purposes of this provision, `non-economic harm' includes such harms as physical harm, psychological harm, emotional trauma, harm to reputation or credit rating, and invasion of privacy interest.”;

in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated) by inserting at the end the following:

“For purposes of this provision:

`Sophisticated means' means committing or concealing an offense with a greater level of complexity than typical for an offense of that nature. Such complexity may be achieved through various methods, including by using advanced or emerging technologies [in ways not routinely employed by everyday users][in a more specialized, elaborate, or unusual way than an ordinary user would]. Sophisticated means are often used to increase the scale of the offense or to make especially difficult the detection of the offense [or the detection of the defendant's participation in the offense].

`United States' means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.”;

in paragraph (18)(C) (as so redesignated) by striking “subsections (b)(2) and (b)(17)(B)” and inserting “subsections (b)(2) and (b)(18)(B)”;

and by inserting at the end the following new paragraphs (22) and (23):

“(22) If the defendant (A) committed the offense at the direction of his or her employer for fear of negative employment consequences; (B) was motivated by an intimate or familial relationship or by threats or fear to commit the offense and was otherwise unlikely to commit such an offense; or (C) was unusually vulnerable to being persuaded or induced to commit the offense due to a physical or mental condition, decrease by [2] levels.

(23) (Apply the greatest) If, prior to the defendant's knowledge of the criminal investigation or prosecution for the offense, the defendant—

(A) voluntarily ceased the criminal activity, [returned the money or property to the victim][made a good faith effort to the maximum extent possible to return the money or property to the victim], and reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities, decrease by [2][4][6] levels;

(B) voluntarily ceased the criminal activity and [returned the money or property to the victim][made a good faith effort to the maximum extent possible to return the money or property to the victim], decrease by [2][4] levels; or

(C) voluntarily ceased the criminal activity, decrease by [2] levels.”.

The Commentary to § 2B1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended—

in Note 5 by striking “(b)(4)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(5)”;

in Note 6 by striking “(b)(6)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(7)”;

in Note 7 by striking “(b)(8)(B)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(9)(B)”;

in Note 8—

in the heading by striking “(b)(9)” and inserting “(b)(10)”

in subparagraph (A) by striking “(b)(9)” and inserting “(b)(10)”;

in subparagraph (B) by striking “(b)(9)(A)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(10)(A)”;

in subparagraph (C) by striking “(b)(9)(C)” and inserting “(b)(10)(C)”;

in subparagraph (D) by striking “(b)(9)(D)” and inserting “(b)(10)(D)”;

in subparagraph (E)(i) by striking “(b)(9)(A)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(10)(A)”;

and in subparagraph (E)(ii) by striking “(b)(9)(B)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(10)(B)”;

in Note 9 by striking the following:

“

Application of Subsection (b)(10).—

(A)

Definition of United States.—

For purposes of subsection (b)(10)(B), `United States' means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

(B)

Sophisticated Means Enhancement under Subsection (b)(10)(C).—

For purposes of subsection (b)(10)(C), `sophisticated means' means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to

the execution or concealment of an offense. For example, in a telemarketing scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction ordinarily indicates sophisticated means. Conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.

(C)

Non-Applicability of Chapter Three Adjustment.—

If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(10) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under § 3C1.1, do not apply that adjustment under § 3C1.1.”;

and inserting the following new Note 9:

“

Application of Subsection (b)(11).—

[(A)

Sophisticated Means Enhancement under Subsection (b)(11)(C).—

For purposes of subsection (b)(11)(C), an example of conduct ordinarily indicating sophisticated means includes, in a telemarketing scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction. Conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.

(B)

Non-Applicability of Chapter Three Adjustment.—

]If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(11) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under § 3C1.1, do not apply that adjustment under § 3C1.1.”;

in Note 10—

in the heading by striking “(b)(11)” and inserting “(b)(12)”;

in subparagraph (A) by striking “(b)(11)” and inserting “(b)(12)”;

in subparagraph (C)—

in the heading by striking “(b)(11)(C)(i)” and inserting “(b)(12)(C)(i)”;

in subparagraph (i) by striking “(b)(11)(C)(i)” and inserting “(b)(12)(C)(i)”;

in subparagraph (ii) by striking “(b)(11)(C)(i)” and inserting “(b)(12)(C)(i)”;

and in subparagraph (iii) by striking “(b)(11)(C)(i)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(12)(C)(i)”;

and in subparagraph (D) by striking “(b)(11)(C)(ii)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(12)(C)(ii)”;

in Note 11 by striking “(b)(13)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(14)”;

in Note 12 by striking “(b)(15)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(16)”;

in Note 13—

in the heading by striking “(b)(17)(A)” and inserting “(b)(18)(A)”;

and in subparagraph (A) by striking “(b)(17)(A)” and inserting “(b)(18)(A)”;

in Note 14—

in the heading by striking “(b)(17)(B)” and inserting “(b)(18)(B)”;

in subparagraph (A) in the heading by striking “(b)(17)(B)(i)” and inserting “(b)(18)(B)(i)”;

and in subparagraph (B) in the heading by striking “(b)(17)(B)(ii)” and inserting “(b)(18)(B)(ii)”;

in Note 15—

in the heading by striking “(b)(19)” and inserting “(b)(20)”;

in subparagraph (A) by striking “(b)(19)” and inserting “(b)(20)”;

and in subparagraph (B) by striking “(b)(19)(A)(iii)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(20)(A)(iii)”; and striking “(b)(17)(B)” both places such term appears and inserting “(b)(18)(b)”;

and in Note 16—

in the heading by striking “(b)(20)” and inserting “(b)(21)”;

in subparagraph (A) by striking “(b)(20)” and inserting “(b)(21)”;

in subparagraph (B) by striking “(b)(20)” and inserting “(b)(21)”;

and in subparagraph (C) by striking “(b)(20)” and inserting “(b)(21)”.

The Commentary to § 2B1.1 captioned “Background” is amended by striking the following:

”Subsection (b)(5) implements the instruction to the Commission in section 2 of Public Law 105-101 and the directive to the Commission in section 3 of Public Law 110-384.

Subsection (b)(7) implements the directive to the Commission in section 10606 of Public Law 111-148.

Subsection (b)(8) implements the directive to the Commission in section 7 of Public Law 112-186.

Subsection (b)(9)(D) implements, in a broader form, the directive in section 3 of the College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000, Public Law 106-420.

Subsection (b)(10) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 6(c)(2) of Public Law 105-184.

Subsections (b)(11)(A)(i) and (B)(i) implement the instruction to the Commission in section 4 of the Wireless Telephone Protection Act, Public Law 105-172.

Subsection (b)(11)(C) implements the directive to the Commission in section 4 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Public Law 105-318. This subsection focuses principally on an aggravated form of identity theft known as `affirmative identity theft' or `breeding', in which a defendant uses another individual's name, social security number, or some other form of identification (the `means of identification') to `breed' (

i.e.,

produce or obtain) new or additional forms of identification. Because 18 U.S.C. 1028(d) broadly defines `means of identification', the new or additional forms of identification can include items such as a driver's license, a credit card, or a bank loan. This subsection provides a minimum offense level of level 12, in part because of the seriousness of the offense. The minimum offense level accounts for the fact that the means of identification that were `bred' (

i.e.,

produced or obtained) often are within the defendant's exclusive control, making it difficult for the individual victim to detect that the victim's identity has been `stolen.' Generally, the victim does not become aware of the offense until certain harms have already occurred (

e.g.,

a damaged credit rating or an inability to obtain a loan). The minimum offense level also accounts for the non-monetary harm associated with these types of offenses, much of which may be difficult or impossible to quantify (

e.g.,

harm to the individual's reputation or credit rating, inconvenience, and other difficulties resulting from the offense). The legislative history of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 indicates that Congress was especially concerned with providing increased punishment for this type of harm.

Subsection (b)(12) implements the directive in section 5 of Public Law 110-179.

Subsection (b)(14) implements the directive in section 3 of Public Law 112-269.

Subsection (b)(16)(B) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 110512 of Public Law 103-322.

Subsection (b)(17)(A) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 2507 of Public Law 101-647.

Subsection (b)(17)(B)(i) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 961(m) of Public Law 101-73.

Subsection (b)(18) implements the directive in section 209 of Public Law 110-326.

Subsection (b)(19) implements the directive in section 225(b) of Public Law 107-296. The minimum offense level of level 24 provided in subsection (b)(19)(B) for an offense that resulted in a substantial disruption of a critical

infrastructure reflects the serious impact such an offense could have on national security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of any of these matters.”;

and inserting the following:

”Subsection (b)(6) implements the instruction to the Commission in section 2 of Public Law 105-101 and the directive to the Commission in section 3 of Public Law 110-384.

Subsection (b)(8) implements the directive to the Commission in section 10606 of Public Law 111-148.

Subsection (b)(9) implements the directive to the Commission in section 7 of Public Law 112-186.

Subsection (b)(10)(D) implements, in a broader form, the directive in section 3 of the College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000, Public Law 106-420.

Subsection (b)(11) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 6(c)(2) of Public Law 105-184.

Subsections (b)(12)(A)(i) and (B)(i) implement the instruction to the Commission in section 4 of the Wireless Telephone Protection Act, Public Law 105-172.

Subsection (b)(12)(C) implements the directive to the Commission in section 4 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Public Law 105-318. This subsection focuses principally on an aggravated form of identity theft known as `affirmative identity theft' or `breeding', in which a defendant uses another individual's name, social security number, or some other form of identification (the `means of identification') to `breed' (

i.e.,

produce or obtain) new or additional forms of identification. Because 18 U.S.C. 1028(d) broadly defines `means of identification', the new or additional forms of identification can include items such as a driver's license, a credit card, or a bank loan. This subsection provides a minimum offense level of level 12, in part because of the seriousness of the offense. The minimum offense level accounts for the fact that the means of identification that were `bred' (

i.e.,

produced or obtained) often are within the defendant's exclusive control, making it difficult for the individual victim to detect that the victim's identity has been `stolen.' Generally, the victim does not become aware of the offense until certain harms have already occurred (

e.g.,

a damaged credit rating or an inability to obtain a loan). The minimum offense level also accounts for the non-monetary harm associated with these types of offenses, much of which may be difficult or impossible to quantify (

e.g.,

harm to the individual's reputation or credit rating, inconvenience, and other difficulties resulting from the offense). The legislative history of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 indicates that Congress was especially concerned with providing increased punishment for this type of harm.

Subsection (b)(13) implements the directive in section 5 of Public Law 110-179.

Subsection (b)(15) implements the directive in section 3 of Public Law 112-269.

Subsection (b)(17)(B) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 110512 of Public Law 103-322.

Subsection (b)(18)(A) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 2507 of Public Law 101-647.

Subsection (b)(18)(B)(i) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 961(m) of Public Law 101-73.

Subsection (b)(19) implements the directive in section 209 of Public Law 110-326.

Subsection (b)(20) implements the directive in section 225(b) of Public Law 107-296. The minimum offense level of level 24 provided in subsection (b)(20)(B) for an offense that resulted in a substantial disruption of a critical infrastructure reflects the serious impact such an offense could have on national security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of any of these matters.”.

The Commentary to § 2J1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended—

in Note 2 by striking “§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(C)” and inserting “§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)”;

and in Note 3 by striking “§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(C)” and inserting “§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)”.

Chapter Three, Part D is amended in the Concluding Commentary to Part D of Chapter Three in Example 3 by striking “§ 2B1.1(b)(10)” and inserting “§ 2B1.1(b)(11)”.

Issues for Comment

1. The Commission seeks comment on whether Part B of the proposed amendment's addition of new subsection (b)(3) adequately addresses substantial non-economic harm to victims. If not, what additional factors or other provisions should the Commission include to address those harms?

How should this new enhancement interact with other provisions in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) that account for harm to victims? For example, how should this new enhancement interact with the victims table in subsection (b)(2), the enhancement for theft from the person of another in renumbered subsection (b)(4), the enhancement for means of identification in renumbered subsection (b)(12), and the enhancement for unauthorized public dissemination of personal information in renumbered subsection (b)(19)(B)? Should this new enhancement be cumulative with the victims table and the other enhancements, or should the Commission reduce the cumulative impact of these various provisions?

2. Part B of the proposed amendment would amend the definition of “sophisticated means” to mean “committing or concealing an offense with a greater level of complexity than typical for an offense of that nature.” It would also include a provision stating that the complexity required by the “sophisticated means” definition “may be achieved through various methods, including by using advanced or emerging technologies [in ways not routinely employed by everyday users][in a more specialized, elaborate, or unusual way than an ordinary user would].” The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed amended definition of “sophisticated means” is the appropriate definition. Is it an improvement over the current definition? Should the Commission provide guidance regarding the level of complexity that is typical for an offense of that nature? If so, what type of guidance should the Commission provide? Further, should the Commission provide additional guidance on what should be considered “advanced or emerging technologies” or on how such technologies must be used for purposes of applying the proposed definition? If so, what guidance should the Commission provide?

Additionally, Part B of the proposed amendment brackets the possibility of maintaining the examples of “sophisticated means” provided in Application Note 9, providing that, in a telemarketing scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction ordinarily indicates sophisticated means and that conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means. If the Commission amends the definition of “sophisticated means,” should the Commission maintain these examples? If not, should the Commission add additional factors or other provisions to the definition of “sophisticated means”?

3. Part B of the proposed amendment would add to § 2B1.1 a new [2]-level reduction at subsection (b)(22) if the individual committed the offense under coercion or duress. The Commission seeks comment on whether this new adjustment should apply more narrowly or more broadly. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the criteria provided for this new reduction are appropriate. Should any criterion be deleted or changed? Should the Commission provide additional or different criteria?

4. Part B of the proposed amendment would add to § 2B1.1 a new tiered reduction at subsection (b)(23) if the defendant took certain actions prior to the defendant's knowledge of the criminal investigation or prosecution of the offense. The Commission seeks comment on whether this new adjustment should apply more narrowly or more broadly. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the criteria provided for this new reduction are appropriate. Should any criterion be deleted or changed? Should the Commission provide additional or different criteria? Should the proposed amendment instead replace the tiered approach with a multi-factor test? If so, what factors should be included for courts to consider when determining whether to provide an offense level reduction?

The Commission is also considering a separate proposed amendment that would provide a reduction at newly created § 3E1.2 (Post-Offense Rehabilitation) based on a defendant's positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts. The Commission seeks comment on how the proposed reduction at § 2B1.1(b)(23) under Part B of this proposed amendment should interact with the proposed reduction at § 3E1.2 under the other amendment. Should the proposed reduction at § 2B1.1(b)(23) be cumulative with a reduction at § 3E1.2 for post-offense rehabilitation, or should the Commission limit the cumulative reduction of these provisions? Are there other provisions in the

Guidelines Manual

that would interact with the proposed reduction at § 2B1.1(b)(23)? If so, how should the Commission account for the interaction(s)?

5. Section 2B1.1 contains specific offense characteristics (SOCs) that are applied infrequently. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should simplify the guideline by amending or removing three infrequently applied SOCs: § 2B1.1(b)(3) (“If the offense involved a theft from the person of another, increase by 2 levels”), (b)(4) (“If the offense involved receiving stolen property, and the defendant was a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, increase by 2 levels”), and (b)(13) (“if the defendant was convicted under 42 U.S.C. 408(a), § 1011(a), or § 1383a(a) and the statutory maximum term of ten years' imprisonment applies, increase by 4 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than 12, increase to level 12”). If so, by what criteria should the Commission determine which SOCs to amend or remove?

4. Post-Offense Rehabilitation Adjustment

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

In August 2025, the Commission identified as one of its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2026, “[e]xamination of whether the guidelines provide appropriate adjustments for good behavior . . . and possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.” U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Notice of Final Priorities,” 90 FR 39263 (Aug. 14, 2025).

The Commission has received comment suggesting that the guidelines do not sufficiently incentivize or reward positive post-offense conduct and rehabilitative efforts taken by defendants prior to sentencing. While § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) accounts for some types of positive post-offense conduct when the court considers a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and § 5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities) accounts for the defendant's cooperation with authorities, commenters have recommended that the Commission consider positive post-offense conduct going beyond that covered by both guidelines.

In response to these suggestions, the proposed amendment would add a new Chapter Three adjustment at § 3E1.2 (Post-Offense Rehabilitation) providing a reduction if the defendant demonstrates positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts. The proposed amendment sets forth two options for the adjustment.

Option 1

provides in subsection (a) for a reduction when the defendant demonstrates prior to sentencing positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts. Subsection (b) instructs the court that, in determining whether a defendant qualifies for the reduction, it shall consider the actions and efforts [voluntarily initiated][undertaken] by the defendant for the benefit of the defendant's own rehabilitation, victim(s) of the offense, community, or other people. It then provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider in making this determination. Subsection (c) provides for an additional reduction if the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a) and the positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts were undertaken before the criminal investigation or prosecution for the offense.

Option 2

provides in subsection (a) for a reduction if the defendant demonstrates a sustained commitment to positive behavioral change evidenced by post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts that go beyond the typical actions undertaken by defendants prior to sentencing. Subsection (b) instructs the court that, in determining whether a defendant qualifies for the reduction, it shall consider the actions and efforts [voluntarily initiated][undertaken] by the defendant, and the timing of such actions and efforts, for the benefit of the defendant's own rehabilitation, victim(s) of the offense, community, or other people. It then provides some broad examples of the types of efforts the court should consider for the adjustment, instead of a list of considerations like the one provided in Option 1.

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Chapter Three, Part E is amended—

in the heading by striking “ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY” and inserting “ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND POST-OFFENSE REHABILITATION”;

and by inserting at the end the following new guideline:

Option 1 (Tiered Adjustments With Specific Considerations)

“§ 3E1.2.

Post-Offense Rehabilitation

(a) If the defendant demonstrates prior to sentencing positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts, decrease the offense level by [1][2][3] levels.

(b) In determining whether a defendant qualifies for a reduction under subsection (a), the court shall consider the actions and efforts [voluntarily initiated][undertaken] by the defendant for the benefit of the defendant's own rehabilitation, victim(s) of the offense, community, or other people. Appropriate considerations include the following:

(1) The defendant took appropriate steps to reduce or remedy the harm caused by the offense.

(2) The defendant made [voluntary] payment of restitution or [voluntarily] entered into an installment payment schedule for making restitution to any victims of the offense(s).

(3) The defendant completed or is successfully participating in a [voluntary] court rehabilitation program.

(4) The defendant completed or is successfully participating in a treatment program to address the abuse of drugs, alcohol, or gambling.

(5) The defendant completed or is successfully participating in counseling (

e.g.,

mental health or anger management).

(6) The defendant completed or is successfully participating in a General Education Development (or similar) program, vocational training, or skills training.

(7) The defendant maintained or obtained gainful employment.

(8) The defendant provided [voluntary and] consistent financial support to family members or dependents.

(9) The defendant performed volunteer or other civic, charitable, or public service in the community.

(10) The defendant assisted in preventing another person from engaging in unlawful conduct.

(11) The defendant assisted in promoting another person's rehabilitation (

e.g.,

identifying or getting into treatment a person addicted to or regularly abusing controlled substances).

(c) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a) and the positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts were undertaken before the criminal investigation or prosecution for the offense, decrease the offense level by [1][2] additional [level][levels].”.

Option 2 (Adjustment Based on Standard With Examples)

“§ 3E1.2.

Post-Offense Rehabilitation

(a) If the defendant demonstrates a sustained commitment to positive behavioral change evidenced by post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts that go beyond the typical actions undertaken by defendants prior to sentencing, decrease the offense level by [1][2][3][4] levels.

(b) In determining whether a defendant qualifies for a reduction under subsection (a), the court should consider the actions and efforts [voluntarily initiated][undertaken] by the defendant, and the timing of such actions and efforts, for the benefit of the defendant's own rehabilitation, victim(s) of the offense, community, or other people. In making such determination, the court may consider any rehabilitative efforts undertaken by the defendant, including personal and behavioral changes of the defendant, steps taken to reduce or remedy the harm caused by the offense, substance abuse rehabilitation, employment history, academic and vocational achievements, role model behavior, and community and family involvement.”.

Issues for Comment

1. The Commission has received comment suggesting that the guidelines do not sufficiently incentivize or reward positive post-offense conduct and rehabilitative efforts taken by defendants prior to sentencing. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed Chapter Three adjustment appropriately addresses these concerns. In determining whether to apply the proposed reduction, should the court consider a defendant's successful compliance with their pre-trial conditions of release, if applicable, or institutional rules, if detained? For example, should defendants only be considered for the proposed reduction if they complied with all conditions of supervision prior to sentencing or all institutional rules if detained prior to sentencing? Are the considerations identified in Option 1 and the examples provided in Option 2 appropriate for courts to consider in determining whether a reduction under § 3E1.2 is warranted? Should the Commission provide additional or different considerations or examples? If so, what should the Commission provide? Should any consideration(s) or example(s) be excluded from consideration? If so, which ones?

2. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise Option 2 of the proposed amendment to provide for a tiered reduction. For example, should Option 2 provide for a reduction based on a defendant's successful compliance with their pre-trial conditions of release, if applicable, or institutional rules, if detained? Should Option 2 then provide for an additional reduction based on post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts undertaken by the defendant that go beyond the typical actions undertaken by defendants prior to sentencing?

3. The Commission seeks comment on how the proposed reduction for post-offense rehabilitation should take into account the timing of the rehabilitative efforts undertaken by the defendant. When should such efforts occur to be considered under the proposed adjustment? Should such efforts be undertaken before the defendant is investigated or indicted? Should the court be allowed to consider efforts undertaken when the defendant is subject to an investigation by the authorities or is indicted for the offense? What changes should be made to the proposed amendment to address the timing of the defendant's efforts?

4. The proposed reduction accounts for rehabilitative efforts [voluntarily initiated] [undertaken] by the defendant. This bracketed “voluntariness” requirement could exclude rehabilitative efforts made pursuant to an order. Some defendants cannot afford to pay themselves for rehabilitation or treatment programs and may rely on court-funded programs to cover the costs of such programs. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed reduction should allow for the consideration of rehabilitative efforts made pursuant to an order. If so, what changes should be made to the proposed amendment to account for such efforts?

5. The proposed amendment sets forth a reduction applicable to defendants who demonstrate positive post-offense behavior or rehabilitative efforts prior to sentencing. Other guidelines, most notably § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility), also account for “post-offense rehabilitative efforts.”

See

§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(G)). Post-offense rehabilitative efforts may also include providing substantial assistance to the authorities in the investigation or prosecution of other individuals or offenses, which is accounted for under § 5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement)).

The Commission seeks comment on how the proposed Chapter Three adjustment for post-offense rehabilitation should interact with other guidelines, especially § 3E1.1 and § 5K1.1. Are there other guidelines that address similar concerns to those addressed by the proposed adjustment? What are those guidelines and how should the proposed adjustment interact with them? Should the Commission distinguish the types of rehabilitative efforts to be accounted for under the proposed adjustment from those that could be considered under other guidelines? For example, should the proposed adjustment account for efforts relating to the defendant's own rehabilitation or for the benefit of the community or other people, while § 3E1.1 accounts for rehabilitative efforts relating to the offense committed by the defendant? Should the Commission place a limitation on the extent of the reduction under the proposed adjustment if the defendant also received an adjustment under § 3E1.1 and/or § 5K1.1? If so, what should the limit be? Are there any other guideline reductions that the Commission should consider for purposes of limiting the extent of the

reduction under the proposed adjustment?

6. The Commission is considering a separate proposed amendment that would add to § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) a new tiered reduction at subsection (b)(23) if the defendant took certain actions prior to the criminal investigation or prosecution for the offense. The Commission seeks comment on how the proposed Chapter Three adjustment for post-offense rehabilitation should interact with the proposed tiered reduction at § 2B1.1(b)(23) set forth in the proposed amendment on economic crimes. Should the proposed Chapter Three adjustment for post-offense rehabilitation be cumulative with the proposed tiered reduction at § 2B1.1(b)(23), or should the Commission limit the cumulative reduction of these provisions? Are there other provisions in the

Guidelines Manual

that would interact with the proposed Chapter Three adjustment for post-offense rehabilitation? If so, how should the Commission account for the interaction(s)?

5. Multiple Counts

Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:

In August 2025, the Commission identified as one of its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2026, “[c]ontinued exploration of ways to simplify the

Guidelines Manual,

” including “examining the operation of the grouping rules in Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts).” U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, “Notice of Final Priorities,” 90 FR 39263 (Aug. 14, 2025).

The guidelines generally require a single, combined offense level in each case. Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts) of the

Guidelines Manual

“provides the rules for determining a single offense level that encompasses all the counts of which the defendant is convicted.” USSG Ch. 3, Pt. D, intro comment (Nov. 1, 2025). The rules in Part D apply to multiple counts regardless of whether they are contained in the same indictment or are contained in different indictments and sentences on those counts are to be imposed at the same time. These rules also apply to some single count cases that include additional conduct that is treated under the

Guidelines Manual

as if it were a separate count of conviction.

See, e.g.,

USSG §§ 1B1.2(c) & (d); 2G1.1(d), 2G1.3(d), 2G2.1(d). As provided in § 3D1.1 (Procedure for Determining Offense Level on Multiple Counts), the multiple count rules proceed in three steps: (1) grouping the counts into distinct groups of closely related counts by applying the rules specified in § 3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts); (2) determining the offense level applicable to each group, as provided in § 3D1.3 (Offense Level Applicable to Each Group of Closely Related Counts); and (3) determining the combined offense level applicable to all groups using the unit system, as provided in § 3D1.4 (Determining the Combined Offense Level).

The first step requires grouping counts “involving substantially the same harm.” Subsections (a) through (d) of § 3D1.2 set forth the four situations when multiple counts involve substantially the same harm: (a) when the counts involve the same victim and arise from a single criminal act or transaction; (b) when the counts involve the same victim and two or more distinct criminal transactions connected by a common criminal objective or constituting part of a common scheme or plan; (c) when one of the counts “embodies conduct that is treated” as a specific offense characteristic or adjustment in the guideline applicable to another of the counts; and (d) when the counts involve offenses to which the same guideline or two different guidelines “of the same general type” apply and the offense level is determined largely based on cumulative measures (such as total amount of harm or loss, the quantity of a substance involved, or some other measure of aggregate harm) or the offense behavior is ongoing or continuous in nature. Section 3D1.2(d), which applies to the fourth situation described above, provides lists of both offenses that are covered by this rule and offenses that are excluded from application of this rule. The rules contained in § 3D1.2 aim to ensure that the guideline range reflects the overall harm and conduct without accounting for the same or similar conduct twice. More than one rule may provide a basis for grouping, but only one rule must apply for counts to group.

The second step requires determining the offense level applicable to each group. This determination depends on which grouping rule applies. As provided in § 3D1.3(a), each count grouped under § 3D1.2(a)-(c) is calculated separately, and the offense level for the group will be the highest offense level of the counts in the group. Section 3D1.3(b) sets forth a different procedure for counts grouped under § 3D1.2(d). If the counts involve offenses to which the same guideline applies, instead of calculating the offense level for each count and choosing the count resulting in the highest offense level, the guideline is applied one time using the aggregate harm or quantity of the grouped counts to determine the offense level. The resulting offense level will be applicable to the group of counts. However, if the counts involve offenses of the same general type to which different guidelines apply, each count is calculated separately, and the offense level for the group will be the highest offense level of the counts in the group.

The third and final step set forth in § 3D1.4 requires assigning units to determine the combined offense level. The group with the highest offense level is assigned one unit, and each remaining group is assigned either one, one-half, and no additional units. The number of additional units is based on the relationship between the group with the highest offense level and any remaining groups. One unit is assigned to any remaining group of comparable seriousness, that is, a group with the same offense level or with one to four fewer offense levels. One-half unit is assigned to any remaining group of somewhat comparable seriousness, that is, a group with five to eight fewer offense levels. No units are assigned to any remaining group of incomparable seriousness, that is, a group with nine or more fewer offense levels. The total number of units determines whether—and the extent to which—additional offense levels are assigned to the most serious group.

The Commission is considering simplification of these multiple count rules for three reasons. First, some commenters have requested simplification of these rules because they are “confusing” and may lead to “incorrect calculations.” Second, the Commission's HelpLine responds to hundreds of calls each year from practitioners specifically seeking guidance on the application of the multiple count rules. Third, despite the expenditure of significant training resources, the Commission has continued to observe misapplication of the multiple count rules, resulting in unwarranted sentencing disparities.

The proposed amendment would amend the guidelines to simplify the procedure for determining the single offense level for cases involving multiple counts. It would replace the five guidelines in Chapter Three, Part D with a single guideline at § 3D1.1 that provides all the steps necessary to determine the single offense level for multiple counts. The revised § 3D1.1 would contain the following four subsections.

New subsection (a) provides that, if multiple counts use the same guideline and the guideline is listed therein, the offense level for this group of counts is determined using the combined offense

behavior taken as a whole. The guidelines listed in new subsection (a) are the same guidelines that require aggregation under current § 3D1.2(d). As such, new subsection (a) maintains the current approach for aggregate harm offenses as set forth in current § 3D1.3(b).

New subsection (b) provides that, if multiple counts use the same guideline and the guideline is listed therein, the offense level for each count is calculated separately and an adjustment based on the number of counts applies to the count in this group resulting in the highest offense level. The guidelines listed in new subsection (b) are all guidelines that are not aggregated pursuant to current § 3D1.2(d) and cover offenses against a person, offenses that frequently result in a multiple count increase under the current § 3D1.4, and six guidelines that contain instructions providing for a multiple count adjustment under certain circumstances.

New subsection (c) explains how to determine the offense level for all counts, including the group of counts covered by new subsections (a) and (b). It instructs to use the offense level from the count or group of counts (as determined under subsections (a) and (b)) resulting in the highest offense level.

New subsection (d) retains the provisions of current § 3D1.1(b) identifying certain types of convictions that are excluded from the guideline rules applicable to multiple counts.

The proposed amendment would also make conforming changes throughout the

Guidelines Manual

to reflect the new procedure of determining the offense level applicable to cases involving multiple counts, and the deletion of the current provisions of Chapter Three, Part D.

Issues for comment are also provided.

Proposed Amendment:

Chapter Three, Part D is amended—

by striking in their entirety the Introductory Commentary, §§ 3D1.1 through 3D1.5, and the Concluding Commentary to Part D of Chapter Three as follows:

“

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.

§ 3D1.1.

Procedure for Determining Offense Level on Multiple Counts

(a) When a defendant has been convicted of more than one count, the court shall:

(1) Group the counts resulting in conviction into distinct Groups of Closely Related Counts (`Groups') by applying the rules specified in § 3D1.2.

(2) Determine the offense level applicable to each Group by applying the rules specified in § 3D1.3.

(3) Determine the combined offense level applicable to all Groups taken together by applying the rules specified in § 3D1.4.

(b) Exclude from the application of §§ 3D1.2-3D1.5 the following:

(1) Any count for which the statute (A) specifies a term of imprisonment to be imposed; and (B) requires that such term of imprisonment be imposed to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment. Sentences for such counts are governed by the provisions of § 5G1.2(a).

(2) Any count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1028A.

See

Application Note 2(B) of the Commentary to § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) for guidance on how sentences for multiple counts of conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1028A should be imposed.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.

In General.

—For purposes of sentencing multiple counts of

conviction, counts can be (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.

2.

Application of Subsection (b).

—Subsection (b)(1) applies if a statute (A) specifies a term of imprisonment to be imposed; and (B) requires that such term of imprisonment be imposed to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.

See, e.g.,

18 U.S.C. 924(c) (requiring mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, based on the conduct involved, to run consecutively). The multiple count rules set out under this part do not apply to a count of conviction covered by subsection (b). However, a count covered by subsection (b)(1) may affect the offense level determination for other counts. For example, a defendant is convicted of one count of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113), and one count of use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). The two counts are not grouped together pursuant to this guideline, and, to avoid unwarranted double counting, the offense level for the bank robbery count under § 2B3.1 (Robbery) is computed without application of the enhancement for weapon possession or use as otherwise required by subsection (b)(2) of that guideline. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c), the mandatory minimum five-year sentence on the weapon-use count runs consecutively to the guideline sentence imposed on the bank robbery count.

See

§ 5G1.2(a).

Unless specifically instructed, subsection (b)(1) does not apply when imposing a sentence under a statute that requires the imposition of a consecutive term of imprisonment only if a term of imprisonment is imposed (

i.e.,

the statute does not otherwise require a term of imprisonment to be imposed).

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.