Sentencing Commission (USSC) and  directed that it develop a comprehensive sentencing scheme for federal  crimes. As incorporated in USSC’s sentencing guidelines, both the substantial  assistance and the safety valve provision may affect sentencing for  offenders whose offense of conviction does not carry a mandatory  minimum sentence—that is, whose sentences are solely governed by the  application of the sentencing guidelines. More Than Half of Drug Sentences Fell below an Otherwise Applicable Mandatory Minimum Sentence

Of 41,861 federal drug sentences included in our analysis that carried a  mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, more than half (52 percent)  fell below an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum sentence. After adjusting for differences in drug offenses and offender  characteristics, the likelihood of an offender receiving a lower sentence  due to either a prosecutor’s substantial assistance motion or for other  reasons varied substantially across the 12 U.S. circuits and the 94 U.S.  district courts. However, these differences, in and of  themselves, may not indicate unwarranted sentencing departures or  misapplication of the sentencing guidelines. Nationally for drug cases,  USSC received 96 percent or more of each of these documents from the  district courts. However, the missing data  could limit analyses of sentencing practices in the few districts where  missing data are most prevalent. More could  be done to help reduce the number of documents that are missing,  incomplete, or too difficult for USSC to interpret. We state in our report  on page 11 that other downward departures are attributable to  prosecutors as well as judges. Fast-track  programs in the southwest border districts provide lower sentences  initiated by prosecutors for low-level drug trafficking offenses. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Specifically, our objectives were to  identify the percentage of federal sentences, and specifically, those for  drug-related offenses, departing downward from the applicable guidelines  range as determined by the court due to substantial assistance motions or  other reasons;  identify the percentage of federal drug sentences that fell below an  applicable mandatory minimum due to substantial assistance motions or  other reasons; compare the likelihood across judicial circuits and districts that offenders  received downward departing sentences or sentences below a mandatory  minimum;  identify limitations, if any, of the U.S. Appendix III: Likelihood of Sentences Falling below a Guideline Range or an Otherwise Applicable Mandatory Minimum

This appendix provides odds and odds ratios to describe the differences  across circuits and districts in sentences falling below a guideline range or  an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for substantial assistance  and other reasons, both before and after controlling for differences in  offender and offense characteristics. We did not confirm this statement with  federal prosecutors. According to USSC  database for drug sentences in fiscal years 1999-2001, the first reason  provided for an other downward departure in 18 percent of the sentences  was the government’s fast track programs; in 16 percent, plea agreement;  and in 4 percent, deportation.
Why GAO Did This Study

Created in 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) was charged with developing the federal sentencing guidelines to limit disparities in sentencing among offenders with similar criminal backgrounds found guilty of similar crimes. Judges determine a specific sentence based on an applicable sentencing guideline range, such as 57 to 71 months, provided in the guidelines. Judges may impose sentences that fall anywhere within the range, above it (upward departures), or below it (downward departures). For some offenses, Congress established mandatory minimum sentences. Judges may also sentence below the minimum in certain circumstances. We examined the differences in drug offense departures from sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences among federal courts and the documents the USSC used to record and analyze sentences.

What GAO Found

Generally, downward departures are defined as (1) substantial assistance departures, made at the prosecutor's request because the offender provided substantial assistance to the government; and (2) other downward departures made for other reasons, such as a plea agreement, a judge's consideration of mitigating factors, or early disposition, i.e., "fast track" programs initiated by prosecutors for low-level drug trafficking offenses. Of federal sentences for drug-related offenses in fiscal years 1999-2001, the majority (56 percent) was within applicable guideline ranges. Downward sentencing departures were more frequently due to prosecutors' substantial assistance motions (28 percent) than for any other reasons (16 percent). For federal drug sentences that carried a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, more than half of the drug sentences imposed fell below a mandatory minimum. Of these, half fell below a minimum due to prosecutors' substantial assistance motions and half due to other reasons. After adjusting for differences in offense and offender characteristics among judicial circuits and districts, our analysis showed variations among certain circuits and districts in the likelihood an offender received a substantial assistance departure, other downward departure, or a sentence falling below a mandatory minimum. However, these variations did not necessarily indicate unwarranted sentencing departures or misapplication of the guidelines because data were not available to fully compare the offenders and offenses for which they were convicted. For drug sentences nationally, USSC receives 96 percent or more of the three key documents, including the statement of reasons (SOR), used to record sentence length and departures. For a small percentage of drug cases in USSC's database, information is missing, incomplete, or too difficult for USSC to interpret, principally affecting sentencing analyses in districts where the missing or incomplete data are most prevalent.