# Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2025-23473 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** December 19, 2025 - **Citation:** 90 FR 59660 ## Text 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 th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2025-23473. Public record. Not legal advice.