Intra-City Differing Practices in Federal Sentencing, US Sentencing Commission, 2019
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/8b/4d/8b4d224831d109ea366ebf85ea42e318.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/8b/4d/8b4d224831d109ea366ebf85ea42e318.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
United States Sentencing Commission January 2019 INTRA-CITY DIFFERENCES IN FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES Federal District Judges in 30 Cities, 2005 - 2017 REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION INTRA-CITY DIFFERENCES IN FEDERAL SENTENCING PRACTICES Federal District Judges in 30 Cities, 2005 - 2017 WILLIAM H. PRYOR JR. Acting Chair RACHEL E. BARKOW Commissioner CHARLES R. BREYER Commissioner DANNY C. REEVES Commissioner PATRICIA K. CUSHWA Ex Officio DAVID RYBICKI Ex Officio KENNETH P. COHEN Staff Director BRENT E. NEWTON Deputy Staff Director JANUARY 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents INTRODUCTION & KEY FINDINGS 5 Introduction 7 Key Findings METHODOLOGY 9 The Commission’s 2012 Study 11 Refining the 2012 Study 14 Case Exclusions 16 Impact of Exclusions 18 Measuring Judicial Discretion 20 Graphical Presentation of the Results FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 25 Overall Findings 29 Conclusions 1 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Table of Contents Appendices APPENDIX A Minneapolis Salt Lake City Boston Chicago Denver Saint Louis Detroit Manhattan Cleveland Columbus Philadelphia Pittsburgh San Diego Phoenix Oklahoma City Baltimore Alexandria Los Angeles Charlotte Memphis Atlanta Dallas San Antonio San Juan Houston Tampa Miami 2 | 2012 Intra-District Analysis 31 Bubble Plot Example 32 Scatter Plot Example APPENDIX B Seattle Portland San Francisco 31 33 City-By-City Results 34 Alexandria 35 Atlanta 36 Baltimore 37 Boston 38 Charlotte 39 Chicago 40 Cleveland 41 Columbus 42 Dallas 43 Denver 44 Detroit 45 Houston 46 Los Angeles 47 Manhattan 48 Memphis https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Miami Minneapolis Oklahoma City Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Saint Louis Salt Lake City San Antonio San Diego San Francisco San Juan Seattle Tampa TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX C 65 Caseload Compositions 66 Alexandria 67 Atlanta 68 Baltimore 69 Boston 70 Charlotte 71 Chicago 73 Cleveland 74 Columbus 75 Dallas 76 Denver 77 Detroit 78 Houston 79 Los Angeles 81 Manhattan 84 Memphis 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Miami Minneapolis Oklahoma City Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Saint Louis Salt Lake City San Antonio San Diego San Francisco San Juan Seattle Tampa APPENDIX D 101 Weighting Analyses 101 Differences in Caseload in a Single Time Period 102 Differences in Caseload Over Time Periods APPENDIX E 105 Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation 119 Minneapolis 108 Atlanta 120 Oklahoma City 109 Chicago 121 Philadelphia 110 Baltimore 122 Phoenix 111 Cleveland 123 Pittsburgh 112 Columbus 124 Portland 113 Dallas 125 Salt Lake City 114 Detroit 126 San Diego 115 Los Angeles 127 San Juan 116 Manhattan 128 Tampa 117 Memphis 118 Miami 3 Congress included three provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act in response to its concerns about unwarranted sentencing disparities. 4 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Federal Judges in 30 Cities 2005 - 2017 This report examines variations in sentencing In its 2012 Booker Report, the Commission’s practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing analysis outcomes—in the federal courts since the Supreme differences among district judges in a majority of 1 Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker. the 94 federal judicial districts. The analysis focused The United States Sentencing Commission analyzed on the judges’ rates of non-government sponsored the sentencing practices of federal district judges below range sentences. Such sentences result from in 30 major cities located throughout the country downward “departures” pursuant to commentary to determine the extent of the judges’ variations in or policy statements in the Guidelines Manual or imposing sentences in relation to the city average. downward “variances” that are outside of the guidelines This report is the second in a series of reports framework pursuant to the courts’ consideration of updating the analyses and findings of the Commission’s the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), without a motion 2012 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States by the government.5 The Commission’s 2012 report v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.2 The first such update, concluded that “sentencing outcomes increasingly issued in 2017, focused on demographic differences at depend[ed] upon the judge to whom the case [was] the national level in federal sentencing.3 Its multivariate assigned.”6 analysis concluded that the increases in demographic differences in sentencing that had occurred during compared judges’ individual sentencing practices the first seven years after Booker—including a higher to average sentencing practices within their same average sentence for Black males compared to White city. Focusing on the average guideline minimum of 4 males—persisted in the subsequent five-year period. the guideline range for each judge’s caseload, the This second update focuses on judges’ sentencing Commission determined whether each judge on practices at the city level. average sentenced below or above the guideline It addresses intra-city of sentencing data showed increasing In its current analysis, the Commission variations in sentencing practices; it is not intended to minimum and by how much. The Commission address inter-city variations. calculated each judge’s average percent difference 5 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 from the guideline minimum, whether positive or negative, in their individual cases and then compared related to a main reason for the Sentencing Reform the judges’ average percent differences to the average Act of 1984, which largely still governs federal percent difference for all the judges in their city. sentencing today, after certain modifications made by The current study is based on a broader the Supreme Court in Booker.7 The Act was the result range of cases than the 2012 study—not only non- of a widespread bipartisan concern that unwarranted government sponsored below range sentences but also sentencing disparities existed in the federal judicial many sentences within and above the guideline range. system.8 It also considered some, but not all, government- differences among the districts) as well as within the sponsored below range sentences. The cases studied same courthouse.9 This report concerns the extent of by the Commission for this report accounted for 49.2 the latter type of disparities since 2005. percent of all cases in the 30 cities from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2017. They were a representative sentencing sample of all cases nationally during those same years. different provisions of the Act—two directed to A key benefit of comparing how different the Commission and a third directed to sentencing judges in the same city sentenced is that they judges—intended to reduce the extent of disparities.10 generally had similar caseloads in terms of offense Congress instructed the Commission to pay “particular types and offender characteristics as the result of the attention” random assignment of cases among the judges in that disparities in creating guidelines.11 city. Therefore, differences in sentencing practices Supreme Court’s decision in Booker rendered the among those judges generally are not explained by guidelines advisory—thereby providing courts with differences in the composition of their caseloads. The more discretion in sentencing than under the pre- methodology used by the Commission for this report Booker guidelines—the Court did not invalidate those is further discussed at pages 9 through 24. three provisions. Indeed, the Court specifically stated that it believed that the post-Booker advisory guideline The Commission’s updated analysis is directly Such disparities were both regional (e.g., In response to its concern about unwarranted disparities, to avoiding Congress included unwarranted three sentencing Although the system would “promote uniformity in the sentencing process” and thus help avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.12 6 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports KEY FINDINGS KEY FINDINGS Findings of the Commission’s 30-City Analysis Overall increases in sentencing differences among judges in 30 major cities since 2005 are consistent with the Commission’s findings in its 2012 Booker Report regarding intra-district sentencing differences— demonstrating that differences persist, 13 years after Booker and six years after the 2012 analysis. • The Commission’s current analysis measured judges’ average percent differences from the guideline minimums in their cases in relation to their city’s average during three periods between 2005 and 2017.* It demonstrated a clear increase in the extent of differences in sentencing practices in a majority of the cities studied following the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Booker and continuing after the Court’s 2007 decisions in Gall and Kimbrough. The overall trend continued, although to lesser extent, in the six years following the last period analyzed in the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report. • Not all of the 30 cities experienced the same changes in differences in sentencing practices since 2005. In some cities, particularly the ones with the largest number of judges, the increases in differences were substantial. However, in other cities, the increases were modest, and a few cities experienced decreases in the extent of sentencing differences among their judges since 2005. • In most cities, the length of a defendant’s sentence increasingly depends on which judge in the courthouse is assigned to his or her case. * The Booker Period (January 12, 2005—December 9, 2007); the Gall Period (December 10, 2007—September 30, 2011); and the Post-Report Period (October 1, 2011—September 30, 2017). 7 By controlling for offense and offender characteristics through random case assignment, differences in sentencing practices among a city’s judges will primarily be attributable to individual judges’ different degrees of sentencing discretion exercised in their cases. 8 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY The Commission’s 2012 Study of Sentencing Differences In 2012, the Commission examined sentencing An example of a bubble plot, taken from differences among judges within each of the 94 federal the 2012 Booker Report, appears in Appendix A judicial districts. Its report used “bubble plots” to show (p. 31). how judges within the same district differed in how often they imposed sentences below the guideline district (in the example in Appendix A, the Northern range without a request from the government.13 District of Illinois). Each bubble represented a single judge in a The relative size of a bubble depicted the size of a judge’s caseload compared to The 2012 analysis covered four time periods: • the Koon Period (the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Koon v. United States14 until the enactment of the PROTECT Act on April 30, 2003); • the PROTECT Act Period (April 30, 2003, the sizes of the caseloads of other judges in the same district. The larger the bubble, the larger a judge’s share of the district’s caseload. The location of a bubble on the vertical axis of the graph showed the rate of that judge’s non-government sponsored below range sentences for the relevant time period. The bubble plots for the 94 districts showed through the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in “variation in the rates of non-government sponsored Blakely v. Washington,15 which foreshadowed below range sentences among judges within the same the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United district ha[d] increased in most districts since Booker, States v. Booker16); indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly • the Booker Period (January 12, 2005, to the Gall and Kimbrough decisions17); and depend[ed] upon the judge to whom the case [was] assigned.”18 In particular, the 2012 report found that “in two-thirds of [the 94] districts the spread in • the Gall Period (the period following the Gall the rates of non-government sponsored below range and Kimbrough decisions through the end of sentences” among judges in the same district increased fiscal year 2011). from the Booker Period through the Gall Period.19 9 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 In addition to the bubble plots for each district, in a specific district may not account for differences the Commission also produced corresponding scatter in caseload and other factors among the different plots showing the average extent of reduction below divisions or cities within that district that could partially the average guideline minimum in the cases in which explain the differences in sentencing practices and judges imposed a non-government sponsored below corresponding sentencing outcomes. range sentence. An example of a scatter plot—also The 2012 district-level study was limited in concerning the Northern District of Illinois—appears two other respects. First, it analyzed every district in Appendix A (p. 32). In the scatter plots, individual judge and magistrate judge “who sentenced at least judges in each district were represented by triangles; one offender” during the relevant time periods.22 unlike in the bubble plots, the size of each judge’s Because there was no minimum caseload requirement caseload was not depicted by the size of the triangles. for inclusion of a judge in the analysis, some judges’ The scatter plots showed significant differences in the actual overall sentencing practices may not have been judges’ average extents of reduction below the average reflected in the data. Second, as noted above, the guideline minimum in those cases, yet the differences 2012 methodology looked solely at the rate and extent existed in each of the four periods studied.20 of non-government sponsored below range sentences. In discussing the limitations in its district- Although the rate of such sentences has steadily level study, the 2012 report noted that, although increased after Booker, they still only constitute around “judges within the same district generally are more one-fifth of all sentences today.23 A more robust likely than judges across districts to preside over analysis would include a broader range of judges’ cases. similar cases to the extent that the district’s cases are randomly distributed among the judges,” “the caseload composition and prosecutorial practices . . . may differ across divisions within the same district.”21 As a result, a comparison of the sentencing practices of all judges 10 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY Refining the 2012 Study Study of Cities vs. Districts Figure 1. Periods Analyzed in the 30-City Study Jan. 12, 2005 – Dec. 9, 2007 Booker Period Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2017 Dec. 10, 2007 – Sept. 30, 2011 Post-Report Period Gall Period For its current report, the Commission has The refined methodology makes other created a refined methodology to analyze differences changes responsive to the limitations noted by the in sentencing practices in the three periods since the Commission in its 2012 study. To be considered in the guidelines became advisory—the Booker Period, Gall current analysis, a sentencing judge had to impose a Period, and six-year period following the publication of minimum of 50 sentences during at least one of the the 2012 Booker Report (called the “Post-Report Period,” periods studied, in order to make it more likely that the using data from fiscal years 2012-2017).24 The refined judge’s cases were representative of his or her overall methodology narrows the bubble plots’ focus on intra- sentencing practices. A city had to have at least three district differences by looking at sentencing differences judges in each period who met this threshold. There at the city level—that is, differences in sentencing was no requirement, however, that those judges be practices among district judges with chambers and the same for each period studied.25 In addition, the courtrooms in the same city. analysis included more than just cases in which judges 11 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 imposed sentences below the guideline minimum practices may differ depending on the city or division without a request from the government (discussed within a district. Therefore, comparing the sentencing further below). practices of an entire district’s judges may result in The study of different sentencing practices of findings of differences in sentencing practices and judges within a single city offers a distinct advantage sentencing outcomes that could be explained in part by over the study of sentencing differences of judges differences in offense types and offender characteristics in larger geographical areas, including federal judicial or different prosecutorial practices associated with districts. When the sentencing practices of federal different parts of the district. judges in a single city are compared, the analysis benefits from random distribution of cases from the same analyzed the sentencing practices of district judges pool of cases, which are subject to generally uniform located in large metropolitan areas in 30 federal judicial prosecutorial practices (e.g., charging practices). That districts throughout the country.28 The cities represent distribution is a function of random case assignment each of the major regions of the United States—the generally used in the federal judicial system in each Southeast, the Northeast, the Southwest, the Midwest, major city or division of a district in which a courthouse the West29—as well as 11 of the 12 federal judicial is located.26 Analyzing different sentencing practices circuits.30 among district judges in the same city is akin to a densely populated areas of the United States.31 “natural experiment.”27 Assuming a city’s judges’ As part of this analysis, the Commission Each city is located in one of the most The total number of cases from the 30 cities caseloads are each large enough as well as randomly over the three periods analyzed by the Commission assigned, all judges in a city overall will sentence was 143,589. The total number of district judges who similarly situated offenders with respect to offense imposed sentences in those cases was 413 (see p. 15). types and offender characteristics. By controlling Judges who imposed 50 or more sentences in more for offense type and offender characteristics through than one period were counted only once in calculating random case assignment, differences in sentencing that total. Judges are not identified by name in the practices among a city’s judges will primarily be Commission’s study. Appendix C lists only identification attributable to individual judges’ different degrees of numbers assigned to each judge by the Commission for sentencing discretion exercised in their cases. research purposes. Conversely, when judges within an entire judicial district are analyzed, the offense types and offender characteristics in the judges’ caseloads may differ substantially depending on the different divisions or cities within the district. Furthermore, prosecutorial 12 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY Figure 2. Cities Analyzed in the Refined Study Seattle Portland Minneapolis San Francisco Salt Lake City Boston Chicago Denver Saint Louis Detroit Manhattan Cleveland Columbus Philadelphia Pittsburgh Baltimore Alexandria Los Angeles San Diego Oklahoma City Phoenix Charlotte Memphis Atlanta Dallas San Antonio San Juan Houston Tampa Miami 1. Alexandria (Eastern District of Virginia);32 16. Miami (Southern District of Florida); 2. Atlanta (Northern District of Georgia); 17. Minneapolis (District of Minnesota); 3. Baltimore (District of Maryland); 18. Oklahoma City (Western District of Oklahoma); 4. Boston (District of Massachusetts); 19. Philadelphia (Eastern District of Pennsylvania); 5. Charlotte (Western District of North Carolina); 20. Phoenix (District of Arizona); 6. Chicago (Northern District of Illinois); 21. Pittsburgh (Western District of Pennsylvania); 7. Cleveland (Northern District of Ohio); 22. Portland (District of Oregon); 8. Columbus (Southern District of Ohio); 23. Saint Louis (Eastern District of Missouri); 9. Dallas (Northern District of Texas); 24. Salt Lake City (District of Utah); 10. Denver (District of Colorado); 25. San Antonio (Western District of Texas); 11. Detroit (Eastern District of Michigan); 26. San Diego (Southern District of California); 12. Houston (Southern District of Texas); 27. San Francisco (Northern District of California); 13. Los Angeles (Central District of California); 14. Manhattan (Southern District of New York); 15. Memphis (Western District of Tennessee); 28. San Juan (District of Puerto Rico); 33 29. Seattle (Western District of Washington); and 30. Tampa (Middle District of Florida). 13 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 METHODOLOGY Case Exclusions Focusing on Cases in Which Meaningful Sentencing Discretion Can Be Measured Another refinement of this study is its range, which together constitute around half of all inclusion of all types of cases in which judicial sentences.34 The Commission’s consideration of these sentencing discretion can be measured. In the 2012 additional categories of cases allows for a fuller study study, the Commission focused on cases in which of sentencing discretion. courts sentenced defendants below the guideline range without a motion from the government. The dataset in other ways in order to focus on sentencing current study analyzes those cases as well as cases discretion. in which courts imposed sentences outside of the cases that did not allow for a meaningful assessment guideline range based on a government motion (with of sentencing discretion, or in which it was difficult to two exceptions discussed below). accurately measure the percent difference from the In addition, the Commission’s current analysis includes cases in which The Commission, however, narrowed the Specifically, the Commission excluded guideline minimum. judges imposed sentences within or above the guideline The Commission excluded two categories of cases because they do not allow for a meaningful assessment of judges’ sentencing discretion: EXCLUSION 1 Cases in which a statutory mandatory minimum penalty equaled or exceeded the EXCLUSION 2 Cases in which a court departed downwardly based on a defendant’s “substantial otherwise applicable guideline minimum (“mandatory minimum trumps”);35 and assistance” to the government or as part of a “fast-track” program (insofar as such departures require the government to file motions requesting them and, when filed, the motions are almost always granted).36 14 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS 30 CITIES 413 The analysis refines the dataset to allow for a fuller study of sentencing discretion. JUDGES 13 YEARS 143,589 CASES The Commission excluded three additional types of cases because of difficulties in accurately measuring the percent difference from the guideline minimum in such cases: EXCLUSION 3 Cases with one or more counts of conviction under a statute requiring a mandatory sentence of imprisonment to run consecutively to any sentence imposed under the guidelines (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c));37 EXCLUSION 4 Cases in which the guideline minimum was life imprisonment or cases in which a court varied or departed upwardly from a guideline range of a term of months to a life imprisonment sentence (as there is no meaningful way to measure the extent of a departure or variance below a life term or the extent of an upward departure or variance to a life term, as a life term is not a fixed term of months); and EXCLUSION 5 Cases in which the guideline minimum was less than ten months (which, after 2010, necessarily fell in Zones A or B of the Sentencing Table).38 15 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 METHODOLOGY Impact of Exclusions After excluding these five categories of cases, The Commission applied the same case along with cases for which incomplete sentencing exclusions to the national caseload during the 13-year documentation was submitted to the Commission,39 study period, which showed that the 143,589 cases 149,363 of the total 291,763 cases from the 30 from the 30 cities were a representative sample of the cities during fiscal years 2005 to 2017 remained for national caseload.41 In terms of caseload composition analysis.40 An additional 5,774 cases were excluded (guideline types), the 30 cities’ caseloads (combined) because they were handled by judges who did not resembled the national caseload composition during meet the minimum 50-case requirement per period the 13-year period, as shown in the figure below. for inclusion in the Commission’s analysis—bringing the total number of cases in the Commission’s 30-city dataset to 143,589 (49.2% of the 291,763 cases). Figure 3. Comparison of Caseload Composition After Exclusions National Caseload (Exclusions Applied) FY 2005 – FY 2017 Combined 30-City Caseload (Exclusions Applied) FY 2005 – FY 2017 (N = 478,833) (N = 143,589) §2B1.1 §2B1.1 9.8% §2D1.1 §2K2.1 §2L1.2 All Other 16 | 33.5% 13.2% 17.8% 25.7% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports 13.1% §2D1.1 §2K2.1 §2L1.2 All Other 31.0% 12.7% 14.2% 29.0% METHODOLOGY Figure 4. Cases Remaining in 30-City Study After Exclusions Federal Offenders Sentenced from FY 2005 through FY 2017 291,763 The Five Methodology Exclusions (n=131,647) 160,116 Incomplete Documentation (n=10,753) 149,363 50-Case Threshold Not Met (n=5,774) No Mandatory Minimum Penalty (n=124,129 or 86.4%) Mandatory Minimum Below Guideline Range (n=19,460 or 13.6%) 143,589 Cases Included in 30-City Analysis Impact of Exclusions on the Effect of Prosecutorial Charging Decisions The exclusion of many cases with statutory In 13.6 percent of the cases in the mandatory minimum penalties reduced the effect that Commission’s dataset for this study (19,460 of 143,589 prosecutorial charging practices could have on the cases), offenders were subject to statutory mandatory Commission’s analyses in this report. Although random minimum sentences. In all of those cases, however, case assignment theoretically should make the effect the statutory minimum fell below the applicable of prosecutorial charging decisions equally spread guideline among all judges in a city, some prosecutors may file discretion to sentence below the guideline minimums superseding indictments containing charges carrying (down to the statutory minimums). In most of those statutory mandatory minimum penalties after they cases, courts sentenced well above the statutory learn that their cases have been assigned to certain mandatory minimum sentence even as they departed judges in a courthouse who are perceived as unduly or varied below the guideline range,43 suggesting that lenient. In such cases, the filing of the superseding prosecutorial charging decisions did not constrain the charges could constrain the judge’s sentencing courts’ sentencing discretion in such cases. discretion. 42 minimum. Therefore, judges retained The Commission’s methodology has reduced the potential influence of this factor. 17 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 METHODOLOGY Measuring Judicial Discretion Judges’ Average Percent Difference from Guideline Minimums The Commission’s city-level analysis focused The guideline minimum was chosen as the on the average percent difference between the baseline for analysis because of the gravitational pull it guideline minimums and the sentences imposed in each tends to have on sentences. The Supreme Court has judge’s cases. For each case, the guideline minimum directed district courts to consider the guideline range and the actual sentence imposed were determined, and as the “benchmark” and “starting point” in the post- a percent difference between the two was calculated Booker federal sentencing process and also to “remain (see Figure 5 on the next page). For example, if the cognizant” of it during all three steps of the “Booker guideline minimum in a case was 63 months and the three-step process” used at federal sentencing.44 In judge imposed a sentence of 39 months (24 months a majority of cases in which judges impose sentences below the guideline minimum), the percent difference within the applicable guideline range, they impose in that case was -38.1 percent. Conversely, if the the guideline minimum (58.4% of cases from fiscal judge imposed a sentence of 87 months in a case with years 2005 through 2017). Furthermore, in the cases a guideline minimum of 63 months (24 months above analyzed by the Commission for this report, when the guideline minimum), the percent difference was judges imposed a sentence outside of the guideline 38.1 percent. All of a judge’s cases’ percent differences range, they departed or varied below the range nearly were then added together and divided by the total 21 times as often as they departed or varied above the number of his or her cases, which yielded an average range.45 In those cases with below range sentences, percent difference for that judge. For some judges, the judges were required by Supreme Court precedent to average percent difference was a positive percentage use the guideline minimum as the “starting point” in (meaning that, on average, his or her sentences were deciding how far to depart or vary below the guideline above the guideline minimums), while for others it was range. The guideline minimum is thus the focal point a negative percentage (meaning that, on average, his or in the advisory guidelines system and, for that reason, her sentences were below the guideline minimums). the baseline for the Commission’s analysis. 18 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY Figure 5. Calculating Percent Difference from Guideline Minimum EXAMPLE: Average Percent Difference Versus Average Sentence Length While other researchers have Guideline Minimum 63 months studied 24-month Difference -38.1% differences in average sentence length among judges in the same city,46 the Commission focused on average percent differences above or below the guideline 39 months minimum because that measure is less sensitive to Sentence Imposed differences in the judges’ caseload compositions and, thus, is a better gauge of sentencing discretion. As shown in Appendix C (p. 65), the judges in the majority based on average sentence lengths, the Commission’s of the 30 cities had generally similar caseloads analysis is informative of differences in sentence length compared to the other judges in their cities. However, in similar cases. Judges’ average percent differences even with random case assignments, some judges had from the guideline minimums in their cases are, of caseload compositions that differed somewhat from course, necessarily associated with their average other judges in the same city. Such differences can sentence lengths. For example, assuming two judges’ have a significant impact on average sentence length average guideline minimums each reflected the national per judge. For instance, if one judge in a city drew average of 60 months,48 but their average percent a disproportionately large number of drug-trafficking differences were 10.0 percent and -40.0 percent, they or firearms cases, which tend to have much higher would impose average sentences of 66.0 months and guideline minimums (and correspondingly higher 36.0 months, respectively—a difference of 30 months sentences) on average than other common offense (or 2-½ years). If those two judges had courtrooms in types,47 that judge’s average sentence could be higher the same city and each drew a sufficiently large number than other judges’ sentences in the same city for of cases through random case assignment to result in reasons unrelated to how that judge exercised his or comparable offender and offense characteristics in her post-Booker sentencing discretion. As discussed their caseloads, that difference in average sentences in Appendix D (p. 101), however, uneven distributions would indicate that similarly situated defendants were of offense types among judges in some of the 30 receiving substantially different sentences within the cities did not substantially affect the average percent same courthouse. Although the Commission’s analysis is not differences of those judges. 19 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 METHODOLOGY Graphical Presentation of the Results Figure 6. Graphical Depiction of the 30-City Analysis Judges above 35 to 39.99% the city’s average. 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% City’s total spread over one time period. Each judge in a city is represented by a bar on the graph. 5 to 9.99% In this example, 24 judges are included 0 to 4.99% in the analysis of this time period. -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% Judges below -10 to -14.99% the city’s average. -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 City Avg -28.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City’s average percent difference from the city’s average guideline minimum. The complete results of the Commission’s 30- minimum for a period) is represented by a bar on the city study appear in Appendix B (p. 33). As shown in graph. The bars show the sentencing practices of each Figure 6 above, a graph for each city uses horizontal judge in relation to the city average. Bars are in either bars to show differences in sentencing practices among the positive or negative halves of the graph depending district judges in each city studied (for each time on judges’ average percent differences in relation to period). Each judge in a city (who met the 50-case the city average. 20 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports METHODOLOGY Red-colored bars represent judges whose The total spread or range measures the average percent differences are above the city’s absolute percentage difference between the two average, while blue-colored bars represent judges judges at opposite ends of the bar graphs,50 while the whose average percent differences are below the standard deviation measures the overall extent of all the city’s average. The darker shades of each color, the city’s judges’ differences in sentencing practices. The further the percentages are away from the city average, standard deviation is a separate “measure of spread, positive or negative. A color key shows what range of dispersion or variability of a group of” datapoints.51 The percentages (in 5% bands) that each shade of each larger the standard deviation, the greater the dispersion color represents (e.g., “-25 to -29.99%”). or variability among the datapoints in the dataset. For Each graph contains one, and usually two, cities where there were less than five judges in any important datapoints relevant to differences in period, only the total spread is reported because four or sentencing practices among the city’s judges for each less judges are too few for reporting the city’s standard time period: (1) the difference between the judge deviation. For cities with five or more judges in all with the largest positive average percent difference three periods, both the total spread and the standard in relation to the city average and the judge with the deviation are reported. Twenty-seven of the 30 cities largest negative average percent difference in relation had at least five judges in all the periods.52 Appendix to the city average in a given time period (referred to E (p. 105) contains a discussion of the relevance of the as the total spread or range); and (2) the standard standard deviation to the Commission’s analysis, as deviation for all judges’ average percent differences in well as a discussion of statistical outliers in the analysis. 49 relation to the city average for the same time period. 21 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 METHODOLOGY Graphical Presentation Depicting a Single Time Period An example of the bar graph (in a single time period) is depicted in Figure 7 to the right. In the case of Chicago in the Post-Report Period, the city’s average percent difference from the CHIThis means, on guideline minimum was -28.1 percent. Post average, judges in Chicago imposed sentences 28.1 percent below the guideline minimums in their cases in the most recent period. The judge represented by Figure 7. Chicago-Based Federal Judges in the Post-Report Period POST-REPORT PERIOD Judges: 24 Cases: 2,951 Spread: 49.5 Standard Deviation: 10.6 the bar with the darkest red shade was the farthest from the city’s average in the positive direction (with an average percent difference 32.4 percentage points higher than the city average). The judge represented by the bar with the darkest blue shade was the farthest from the city’s average in the negative direction (with an average percent difference 17.0 percentage points lower than the city average). The total spread of 49.5 is the absolute percentage difference between those two judges’ average percent differences.53 The standard -40.0 deviation of 10.6 is the measure of the dispersion from the city average for all 24 judges in the analysis. 22 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -28.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40 METHODOLOGY Figure 8. Chicago-Based Federal Judges in All Periods METHODOLOGY CHI Booker Graphical Presentation Depicting All Time Periods BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 18 Cases: 1,341 Spread: 31.6 Standard Deviation: 7.9 The bar graphs for all 30 cities in Appendix B (p. 33) show all three time periods together, so that changes in the total spread and standard deviation from one period to the next can be seen. An example of bar graphs for a single city over -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -28.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 CHI all three periods is depicted on the right in Figure Gall8. This graphical presentation for Chicago shows that the total spread increased from 31.6 in the Booker Period to 42.7 in the Gall Period to 49.5 in the PostReport Period. During the same three periods, the standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 11.0 but GALL PERIOD Judges: 22 Cases: 2,033 Spread: 42.7 Standard Deviation: 11.0 then decreased slightly to 10.6. -40.0 CHI Post -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 POST-REPORT PERIOD Judges: 24 Cases: 2,951 Spread: 49.5 Standard Deviation: 10.6 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 23 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Figure 9. Oklahoma City-Based Federal Judges in All Periods METHODOLOGY OKC Booker BOOKER PERIOD Graphical Presentation Depicting All Time Periods Judges: 7 Cases: 436 Spread: 32.1 Standard Deviation: 10.2 In contrast to Chicago, Oklahoma City is an example of a city whose total spreads and standard deviations consistently decreased during the three periods. -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -0.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -7.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -19.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Its total spread decreased from 32.1 in the OKC Booker Period to 14.8 in the Gall Period to 6.9 inGall the Post-Report Period. During the same three periods, the standard deviation decreased from 10.2 to 5.2 and then to 2.7. GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 800 Spread: 14.8 Standard Deviation: 5.2 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 OKC Post POST-REPORT PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 1,369 Spread: 6.9 Standard Deviation: 2.7 -40.0 24 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 FINDINGS Results for all 30 cities, as depicted in the bar charts for the three periods (including the total spreads and standard deviations), are contained in Appendix B. FINDINGS Overall Findings of the 30-City Analysis City-by-City Changes Across Periods Booker Period to Gall Period Consistent with the findings of the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report, the city-level analysis demonstrated an overall increase in differences in sentencing practices from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. Specifically, as shown in Appendix B (p. 33), 23 of the 30 cities had increases in their total spreads, and 22 of 27 cities (those with at least five judges in all three periods) had increases in their standard deviations. Seven cities had decreases in their total spreads, and five cities had decreases in the 23 CITIES INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD 7 CITIES DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD 22 CITIES INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION 5 CITIES DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION standard deviations.54 Not all cities experienced increases or decreases in both measures. Some had an increase in one measure and a decrease in the other measure. Gall Period to Post-Report Period This trend continued from the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, but at a slower rate. As shown in Appendix B (p. 33), 20 of the 30 cities had increases in their total spreads. Sixteen of the 27 cities (those with at least five judges in all periods) had increases in their standard deviations, although the magnitude of the increases was noticeably less than the magnitude of the increases from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. Ten cities had decreases in their total spreads, and 11 had 20 CITIES INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD 10 CITIES DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD 16 CITIES INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION 11 CITIES DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION 25 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 decreases in their standard deviations.55 Just as in the prior period change, not all cities experienced increases or decreases in both measures. Some had an increase in one measure and a decrease in the other measure. Booker Period to Post-Report Period Of the 30 cities, five—Boston, Cleveland, 25 CITIES Columbus, Oklahoma City, and Saint Louis—saw net INCREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD decreases in their total spreads from the Booker Period 5 CITIES to the Post-Report Period, while four (four of the same five, with the exception of Cleveland) saw net decreases in their standard deviations as well. The rest of the cities saw net increases in their total spreads and standard deviations from the Booker Period to the PostReport Period. DECREASES IN TOTAL SPREAD 23 CITIES INCREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION 4 CITIES DECREASES IN STANDARD DEVIATION Largest and Smallest Total Spreads and Standard Deviations Post-Report Period Looking at the most recent period, the Post- PHILADELPHIA Report Period, the city with the largest total spread LARGEST SPREAD was Philadelphia (63.8), and the city with the smallest OKLAHOMA CITY total spread was Oklahoma City (6.9). The city with the largest standard deviation was Houston (14.6), and the city with the smallest standard deviation was Oklahoma City (2.7). SMALLEST SPREAD HOUSTON LARGEST STANDARD DEVIATION OKLAHOMA CITY SMALLEST STANDARD DEVIATION 26 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports FINDINGS Changes for All 30 Cities Combined Across Periods A similar trend of overall increasing sentencing differences is seen with respect to the average total spread and average standard deviation for all 30 cities combined (except for the three cities with fewer than five judges for at least one period, for which standard Seattle Portland Minneapolis San Francisco deviations were not reported). As reflected in Figure 10 below, average total spreads for all 30 cities in the Salt Lake City Boston Chicago Denver Saint Louis Detroit Manhattan Cleveland Columbus Philadelphia Pittsburgh Los Angeles San Diego Phoenix three periods grew from 18.2 in the Booker Period Oklahoma City Charlotte Memphis Atlanta Dallas to 23.7 in the Gall Period to 27.6 in the Post-Report Baltimore Alexandria San Antonio San Juan Houston Tampa Period. Average standard deviations for the 27 cities Miami (those with at least five judges in all three periods) grew from 5.8 in the Booker Period to 7.7 in the Gall Period to 8.3 in the Post-Report Period. Figure 10. Averages for All 30 Cities Combined Booker Period Gall Period Post-Report Period Average Total Spread 18.2 23.7 27.6 Average Standard Deviation 5.8 7.7 8.3 27 This report’s findings of overall increasing differences in sentencing practices among judges within the same cities are consistent with intradistrict findings from the Commission’s 2012 report. 28 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Differences in Sentencing Practices Among Federal Judges Although the trend of increasing differences among judges slowed after 2011, the increasing differences in sentencing practices first reported at the district level in the Commission’s 2012 Booker Report generally persist to this day, even within the same courthouse. In particular, the Commission finds that: CONCLUSION 1 From the Booker to Gall Periods, 23 of the 30 cities had increases in their total spreads, and 22 of 27 cities (those with at least five judges in all three periods) had increases in their standard deviations. From the Gall to the Post-Report Periods, 20 of the 30 cities had increases in their total spreads, and 16 of the 27 cities (those with at least five judges in all periods) had increases in their standard deviations, although the magnitude of the increases was less than the magnitude of the increases from the Booker Period to the Gall Period. CONCLUSION 2 In terms of the overall changes during the 13 years, from the Booker Period to the Post-Report Period, 25 of the 30 cities saw a net increase in their total spreads and 23 cities of the 27 with reported standard deviations saw a net increase in their standard deviations. CONCLUSION 3 Considering all 30 cities together as a representative sample of the country as a whole, the average total spreads for all 30 cities in the three periods increased from 18.2 in the Booker Period to 23.7 in the Gall Period to 27.6 in the Post-Report Period. The average standard deviations for the 27 cities (those with at least five judges) grew from 5.8 to 7.7 to 8.3 during the same three periods. CONCLUSION 4 In most cities, the length of a defendant’s sentence increasingly depends on which judge in the courthouse is assigned to his or her case. 29 The Commission’s 2012 Booker Report depicted differences among judges within districts using bubble plots and scatter plots. 30 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX A: 2012 Intra-District Analysis APPENDIX A 2012 Booker Report Analysis Bubble Plot Example 31 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Scatter Plot Example 32 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results APPENDIX B City-By-City Results Seattle Portland Minneapolis San Francisco Salt Lake City Boston Chicago Denver Saint Louis Detroit Manhattan Cleveland Columbus Philadelphia Pittsburgh Baltimore Alexandria Los Angeles San Diego Phoenix Oklahoma City Charlotte Memphis Atlanta Dallas San Antonio San Juan Houston Tampa Miami The results for the 30 cities, as depicted in Rather, the Commission’s analysis in this report is the bar charts for the three periods with information offered to compare judges within each city to one about the total spreads and standard deviations, are another and also to compare the extent of sentencing contained in this appendix. As noted at the outset of differences in each city over time. this report, the 30 cities’ results are not offered for the purpose of comparing the cities to each other. 33 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 ALEX Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 5 Cases: 746 Spread: 8.5 Standard Deviation: 3.5 ALEXANDRIA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA The Commission analyzed 3,263 cases from Alexandria -40.0 across the three periods. ALEX From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Alexandria’s Gall total spread increased from 8.5 to 21.0, and its standard deviation increased from 3.5 to 7.9. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Alexandria’s total spread increased from 21.0 to 22.1, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -17.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -29.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,058 Spread: 21.0 Standard Deviation: 7.9 and its standard deviation decreased from 7.9 to 7.5. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 ALEX Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 7 Cases: 1,459 Spread: 22.1 Standard Deviation: 7.5 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 34 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results ATL Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 12 Cases: 995 Spread: 19.6 Standard Deviation: 5.5 ATLANTA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA The Commission analyzed 4,642 cases from Atlanta -40.0 across the three periods. ATL From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Atlanta’s Gall total spread increased from 19.6 to 31.8, and its standard deviation increased from 5.5 to 7.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Atlanta’s total spread decreased from 31.8 to 26.9, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -1.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -8.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 14 Cases: 1,504 Spread: 31.8 Standard Deviation: 7.2 its standard deviation increased from 7.2 to 9.6. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10.0 ATL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD Judges: 15 Cases: 2,143 Spread: 26.9 Standard Deviation: 9.6 -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 35 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 BALT Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 618 Spread: 18.7 Standard Deviation: 6.7 BALTIMORE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MARYLAND The Commission analyzed 3,354 cases from Baltimore -40.0 across the three periods. BALT From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Baltimore’s Gall total spread increased from 18.7 to 24.5, and its standard deviation increased from 6.7 to 8.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Baltimore’s total spread decreased from 24.5 to 19.7, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City0.0 Avg -5.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -12.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -15.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 968 Spread: 24.5 Standard Deviation: 8.2 and its standard deviation decreased from 8.2 to 6.7. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 BALT Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 9 Cases: 1,768 Spread: 19.7 Standard Deviation: 6.7 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 36 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results BOS Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 12 Cases: 830 Spread: 32.2 Standard Deviation: 9.1 BOSTON-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS The Commission analyzed 3,619 cases from Boston -40.0 across the three periods. BOS From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Boston’s Gall total spread increased from 32.2 to 35.2, and its standard deviation increased from 9.1 to 11.3. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Boston’s total spread decreased from 35.2 to 28.7, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -20.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -27.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 11 Cases: 1,177 Spread: 35.2 Standard Deviation: 11.3 its standard deviation decreased from 11.3 to 8.9. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 BOS Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 11 Cases: 1,612 Spread: 28.7 Standard Deviation: 8.9 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 37 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 CHAR Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 4 Cases: 709 Spread: 8.9 CHARLOTTE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA The Commission analyzed 2,527 cases from Charlotte -40.0 across the three periods. -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg 1.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -1.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 CHAR From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Charlotte’s total spread increased from 8.9 to 14.1. Gall From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Charlotte’s total spread increased from 14.1 to 19.4. GALL PERIOD Judges: 3 Cases: 667 Spread: 14.1 Because Charlotte did not have at least five judges in all three periods, the standard deviations for the three periods are not reported. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% CHAR Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% Judges: 3 Cases: 1,151 Spread: 19.4 -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 38 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -7.7% APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results CHI Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 18 Cases: 1,341 Spread: 31.6 Standard Deviation: 7.9 CHICAGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS The Commission analyzed 6,325 cases from Chicago -40.0 across the three periods. -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 CHI From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Chicago’s Gall total spread increased from 31.6 to 42.7, and its GALL PERIOD standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 11.0. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Chicago’s total spread increased from 42.7 to 49.5, and its standard deviation decreased from 11.0 to 10.6. Judges: 22 Cases: 2,033 Spread: 42.7 Standard Deviation: 11.0 -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 CHI Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 24 Cases: 2,951 Spread: 49.5 Standard Deviation: 10.6 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -28.1% 39 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 CLEV Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 924 Spread: 22.7 Standard Deviation: 6.6 CLEVELAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The Commission analyzed 2,908 cases from Cleveland -40.0 across the three periods. CLEV From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Cleveland’s Gall total spread decreased from 22.7 to 16.6, and its standard deviation decreased from 6.6 to 5.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Cleveland’s total spread increased from 16.6 to 19.9, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -6.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -12.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 744 Spread: 16.6 Standard Deviation: 5.2 and its standard deviation increased from 5.2 to 7.5. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 CLEV Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 6 Cases: 1,240 Spread: 19.9 Standard Deviation: 7.5 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 40 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results COL Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 5 Cases: 282 Spread: 15.2 Standard Deviation: 6.0 COLUMBUS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The Commission analyzed 1,672 cases from Columbus -40.0 across the three periods. COL From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Columbus’s Gall total spread decreased from 15.2 to 12.4, and its standard deviation decreased from 6.0 to 5.0. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Columbus’s total spread decreased from 12.4 to 8.7, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -10.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -19.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -24.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 463 Spread: 12.4 Standard Deviation: 5.0 and its standard deviation decreased from 5.0 to 3.1. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 COL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 7 Cases: 927 Spread: 8.7 Standard Deviation: 3.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 41 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 DAL Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 660 Spread: 22.0 Standard Deviation: 6.6 DALLAS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS The Commission analyzed 4,071 cases from Dallas -40.0 across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Dallas’DAL total Gall spread increased from 22.0 to 33.0, and its standard deviation increased from 6.6 to 10.9. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Dallas’ total spread increased from 33.0 to 40.3, and its -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 1.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -3.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -2.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 904 Spread: 33.0 Standard Deviation: 10.9 standard deviation increased from 10.9 to 12.5. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 DAL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 7 Cases: 2,507 Spread: 40.3 Standard Deviation: 12.5 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 42 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results DEN Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 751 Spread: 4.9 Standard Deviation: 2.3 DENVER-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF COLORADO The Commission analyzed 3,417 cases from Denver -40.0 across the three periods. DEN From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Denver’s Gall total spread increased from 4.9 to 12.7, and its standard deviation increased from 2.3 to 4.4. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Denver’s total spread increased from 12.7 to 17.9, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -7.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,182 Spread: 12.7 Standard Deviation: 4.4 its standard deviation increased from 4.4 to 6.3. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 DEN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 9 Cases: 1,484 Spread: 17.9 Standard Deviation: 6.3 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 43 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 DET Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 11 Cases: 680 Spread: 34.4 Standard Deviation: 9.5 DETROIT-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN The Commission analyzed 3,901 cases from Detroit -40.0 across the three periods. DET From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Detroit’s Gall total spread decreased from 34.4 to 34.1, and its standard deviation increased from 9.5 to 10.6. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Detroit’s total spread increased from 34.1 to 47.7, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -21.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -23.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 12 Cases: 1,011 Spread: 34.1 Standard Deviation: 10.6 its standard deviation increased from 10.6 to 11.1. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 DET Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 18 Cases: 2,210 Spread: 47.7 Standard Deviation: 11.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 44 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results HOU Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 10 Cases: 1,148 Spread: 23.3 Standard Deviation: 7.9 HOUSTON-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS The Commission analyzed 6,417 cases from Houston -40.0 across the three periods. HOU From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Houston’s Gall total spread increased from 23.3 to 36.5, and its standard deviation increased from 7.9 to 12.6. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Houston’s total spread increased from 36.5 to 38.4, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg 4.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -1.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -6.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 11 Cases: 2,411 Spread: 36.5 Standard Deviation: 12.6 and its standard deviation increased from 12.6 to 14.6. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 HOU Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% Judges: 11 Cases: 2,858 Spread: 38.4 Standard Deviation: 14.6 -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 45 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 LA Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 15 Cases: 1,273 Spread: 29.1 Standard Deviation: 7.6 LOS ANGELES-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The Commission analyzed 6,791 cases from Los Angeles across the three periods. -40.0 LA From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Los Angeles’ Gall total spread increased from 29.1 to 29.3, and its standard deviation increased from 7.6 to 8.0. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Los Angeles’ total spread increased from 29.3 to 42.9, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -18.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -26.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 18 Cases: 2,407 Spread: 29.3 Standard Deviation: 8.0 its standard deviation increased from 8.0 to 11.8. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 LA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 20 Cases: 3,111 Spread: 42.9 Standard Deviation: 11.8 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 46 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results MAN Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 32 Cases: 2,899 Spread: 44.8 Standard Deviation: 9.2 MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK The Commission analyzed 11,197 cases from -40.0 Manhattan across the three periods. MAN From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Manhattan’s Gall total spread decreased from 44.8 to 34.5 and its standard deviation decreased from 9.2 to 8.7. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Manhattan’s total spread increased from 34.5 to 59.1, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -25.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -36.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 31 Cases: 3,435 Spread: 34.5 Standard Deviation: 8.7 and its standard deviation increased from 8.7 to 12.9. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 MAN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 38 Cases: 4,863 Spread: 59.1 Standard Deviation: 12.9 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 47 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 MEM Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 3 Cases: 534 Spread: 14.0 MEMPHIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE The Commission analyzed 2,914 cases from Memphis -40.0 across the three periods. MEM From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Memphis’ total spread increased from 14.0 to 17.4. Gall From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Memphis’ total spread increased from 17.4 to 18.6. -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -5.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -6.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 4 Cases: 980 Spread: 17.4 Because Memphis did not have at least five judges in all three periods, the standard deviations for the three periods are not reported. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% MEM Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% Judges: 5 Cases: 1,400 Spread: 18.6 -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 48 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results MIA Booker KEY FINDINGS MIAMI-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 13 Cases: 2,074 Spread: 16.0 Standard Deviation: 4.1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA The Commission analyzed 9,467 cases from Miami -40.0 across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Miami’sMIA total Gall spread increased from 16.0 to 17.1, and its standard deviation increased from 4.1 to 5.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Miami’s total spread increased from 17.1 to 29.9, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -6.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -10.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 12 Cases: 2,859 Spread: 17.1 Standard Deviation: 5.2 its standard deviation increased from 5.2 to 9.0. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 MIA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 15 Cases: 4,534 Spread: 29.9 Standard Deviation: 9.0 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 49 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 MINN Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 606 Spread: 13.7 Standard Deviation: 5.1 MINNEAPOLIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA The Commission analyzed 2,510 cases from -40.0 Minneapolis across the three periods. MINN From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Minneapolis’ Gall total spread increased from 13.7 to 20.5, and its standard deviation increased from 5.1 to 6.9. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Minneapolis’ total spread decreased from 20.5 to 15.0, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -7.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -15.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -18.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 908 Spread: 20.5 Standard Deviation: 6.9 and its standard deviation decreased from 6.9 to 5.3. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 MINN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% Judges: 6 Cases: 996 Spread: 15.0 Standard Deviation: 5.3 -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 50 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results OKC Booker KEY FINDINGS OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 436 Spread: 32.1 Standard Deviation: 10.2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA The Commission analyzed 2,605 cases from Oklahoma -40.0 City across the three periods. OKC From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Oklahoma Gall City’s total spread decreased from 32.1 to 14.8, and its standard deviation decreased from 10.2 to 5.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Oklahoma City’s total spread decreased from 14.8 to -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -0.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -7.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -19.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 800 Spread: 14.8 Standard Deviation: 5.2 6.9, and its standard deviation decreased from 5.2 to 2.7. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 OKC Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% Judges: 6 Cases: 1,369 Spread: 6.9 Standard Deviation: 2.7 -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 51 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 PHI Booker KEY FINDINGS PHILADELPHIA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 10 Cases: 534 Spread: 33.8 Standard Deviation: 9.6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Commission analyzed 2,852 cases from -40.0 Philadelphia across the three periods. PHI From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Philadelphia’s Gall total spread increased from 33.8 to 53.7, and its standard deviation increased from 9.6 to 13.5. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Philadelphia’s total spread increased from 53.7 to 63.8, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -11.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -18.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 16 Cases: 1,004 Spread: 53.7 Standard Deviation: 13.5 and its standard deviation increased from 13.5 to 13.6. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 PHI Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% Judges: 18 Cases: 1,314 Spread: 63.8 Standard Deviation: 13.6 -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 52 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results PHX Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 10 Cases: 1,843 Spread: 8.7 Standard Deviation: 2.8 PHOENIX-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF ARIZONA The Commission analyzed 7,915 cases from Phoenix -40.0 across the three periods. PHX From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Phoenix’s Gall total spread increased from 8.7 to 25.7, and its standard deviation increased from 2.8 to 7.1. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Phoenix’s total spread increased from 25.7 to 27.5, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -3.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -7.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 11 Cases: 2,330 Spread: 25.7 Standard Deviation: 7.1 its standard deviation increased from 7.1 to 7.9. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 PHX Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 13 Cases: 3,742 Spread: 27.5 Standard Deviation: 7.9 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 53 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 PITT Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 629 Spread: 19.7 Standard Deviation: 5.9 PITTSBURGH-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Commission analyzed 2,770 cases from Pittsburgh -40.0 across the three periods. PITT From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Pittsburgh’s Gall total spread increased from 19.7 to 32.5, and its standard deviation increased from 5.9 to 9.4. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Pittsburgh’s total spread decreased from 32.5 to 19.8, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -1.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 10 Cases: 854 Spread: 32.5 Standard Deviation: 9.4 and its standard deviation decreased from 9.4 to 6.9. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 PITT Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 10 Cases: 1,287 Spread: 19.8 Standard Deviation: 6.9 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 54 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results PORT Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 5 Cases: 586 Spread: 8.3 Standard Deviation: 3.3 PORTLAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF OREGON The Commission analyzed 3,314 cases from Portland -40.0 across the three periods. PORT From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Portland’s Gall total spread increased from 8.3 to 14.7, and its standard deviation increased from 3.3 to 5.8. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Portland’s total spread increased from 14.7 to 24.6, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -11.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -21.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -29.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,017 Spread: 14.7 Standard Deviation: 5.8 and its standard deviation increased from 5.8 to 7.1. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 PORT Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 10 Cases: 1,711 Spread: 24.6 Standard Deviation: 7.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 55 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 STL Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 1,569 Spread: 11.5 Standard Deviation: 4.2 SAINT LOUIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI The Commission analyzed 6,007 cases from Saint -40.0 Louis across the three periods. STL From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Saint Louis’ Gall total spread increased from 11.5 to 19.6, and its standard deviation increased from 4.2 to 5.8. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Saint Louis’ total spread decreased from 19.6 to 10.4, and its -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -2.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -20.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 2,026 Spread: 19.6 Standard Deviation: 5.8 standard deviation decreased from 5.8 to 3.6. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 STL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 9 Cases: 2,412 Spread: 10.4 Standard Deviation: 3.6 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 56 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results SLC Booker KEY FINDINGS SALT LAKE CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 1,504 Spread: 7.8 Standard Deviation: 3.0 DISTRICT OF UTAH The Commission analyzed 4,665 cases from Salt Lake -40.0 City across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, SaltSLC Lake Gall City’s total spread increased from 7.8 to 14.7, and its standard deviation increased from 3.0 to 5.6. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Salt Lake City’s total spread increased from 14.7 to 20.1, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -6.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -15.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -29.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 1,428 Spread: 14.7 Standard Deviation: 5.6 and its standard deviation increased from 5.6 to 5.8. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 SLC Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 9 Cases: 1,733 Spread: 20.1 Standard Deviation: 5.8 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 57 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 SANT Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 3 Cases: 665 Spread: 7.5 SAN ANTONIO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS The Commission analyzed 5,198 cases from San -40.0 Antonio across the three periods. SANT From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Antonio’s total spread decreased from 7.5 to 7.1. Gall From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San Antonio’s total spread increased from 7.1 to 12.2. -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -6.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -18.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -15.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 3 Cases: 1,481 Spread: 7.1 Because San Antonio did not have at least five judges in all three periods, the standard deviations for the three periods are not reported. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% SANT Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% Judges: 4 Cases: 3,052 Spread: 12.2 -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 58 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results SD Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 2,295 Spread: 13.9 Standard Deviation: 4.5 SAN DIEGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The Commission analyzed 11,960 cases from San -40.0 Diego across the three periods. SD From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Diego’s Gall total spread increased from 13.9 to 21.3, and its standard deviation increased from 4.5 to 6.4. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San Diego’s total spread increased from 21.3 to 54.4, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -6.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -23.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 14 Cases: 5,288 Spread: 21.3 Standard Deviation: 6.4 its standard deviation increased from 6.4 to 13.0. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 SD Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 16 Cases: 4,377 Spread: 54.4 Standard Deviation: 13.0 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 59 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 SF Booker KEY FINDINGS SAN FRANCISCO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 384 Spread: 10.0 Standard Deviation: 4.3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The Commission analyzed 1,880 cases from San -40.0 Francisco across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period,SF San Gall Francisco’s total spread increased from 10.0 to 18.3, and its standard deviation increased from 4.3 to 7.4. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San Francisco’s total spread decreased from 18.3 to 17.9, -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -9.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -12.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -23.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 5 Cases: 567 Spread: 18.3 Standard Deviation: 7.4 and its standard deviation decreased from 7.4 to 6.1. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 SF Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 8 Cases: 929 Spread: 17.9 Standard Deviation: 6.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 60 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results KEY FINDINGS SAN JUAN Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 923 Spread: 9.6 Standard Deviation: 3.6 SAN JUAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO The Commission analyzed 6,460 cases from San Juan -40.0 across the three periods. SAN From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, San Juan’s JUAN total spread increased from 9.6 to 20.9, and its standard Gall deviation increased from 3.6 to 7.2. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, San Juan’s total spread increased from 20.9 to 22.2, and its -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 0.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 1.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 1,524 Spread: 20.9 Standard Deviation: 7.2 standard deviation increased from 7.2 to 7.4. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -10.0 SAN JUAN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 4,013 Spread: 22.2 Standard Deviation: 7.4 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 61 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 SEA Booker KEY FINDINGS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,108 Spread: 10.4 Standard Deviation: 3.9 SEATTLE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON The Commission analyzed 3,689 cases from Seattle -40.0 across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Seattle’sSEA total Gall spread decreased from 10.4 to 4.9, and its standard deviation decreased from 3.9 to 1.6. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Seattle’s total spread increased from 4.9 to 21.1, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -20.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -22.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -31.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,134 Spread: 4.9 Standard Deviation: 1.6 its standard deviation increased from 1.6 to 7.1. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 SEA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 7 Cases: 1,447 Spread: 21.1 Standard Deviation: 7.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 62 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX B: City-by-City Results TAMPA Booker KEY FINDINGS TAMPA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,283 Spread: 11.9 Standard Deviation: 3.7 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA The Commission analyzed 5,279 cases from Tampa -40.0 across the three periods. From the Booker Period to the Gall Period, Tampa’sTAMPA total Gall spread increased from 11.9 to 29.7, and its standard deviation increased from 3.7 to 9.6. From the Gall Period to the Post-Report Period, Tampa’s total spread decreased from 29.7 to 22.7, and -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -0.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -4.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 1,567 Spread: 29.7 Standard Deviation: 9.6 its standard deviation decreased from 9.6 to 5.9. -40.0 Legend -30.0 -20.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -10.0 TAMPA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 10 Cases: 2,429 Spread: 22.7 Standard Deviation: 5.9 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 63 The Commission analyzed whether random assignment of cases resulted in even distribution of offense types among judges. 64 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions APPENDIX C Caseload Compositions of 30 Cities As discussed above, a key reason for fairly even distribution of the primary four guideline studying differences in sentencing practices of judges types—§§2B1.1 (fraud and theft offenses), 2D1.1 within a single city—as opposed to judges in a larger (drug-trafficking offenses), 2K2.1 (firearm offenses), geographical region, such as a federal judicial district and 2L1.2 (illegal reentry offenses)—as well as all with multiple divisions—is that, as a general practice, other offense types (as a catch-all fifth category).56 federal district judges within a single city are randomly This appendix contains data regarding all 30 cities’ assigned cases from the same pool of cases. Assuming judges’ caseload compositions in each period, as well a sufficiently large enough number of cases per judge, as data about each city’s total caseload over the three random assignment should generally result in each periods. It shows that for most judges in most cities, judge in a city having a roughly even distribution of their caseload compositions were generally similar. guideline offense types. The Commission selected It likewise shows that most cities had comparable the 50-case minimum per judge requirement for caseload compositions over the three periods.57 Judges each period studied for the purpose of increasing the are identified only by a four-digit number assigned by likelihood that case assignment resulted in randomly the Commission for research purposes. distributed guideline offense types. The Commission analyzed each There were some exceptions, however. city’s As a result, as discussed in Appendix D (p. 101), sentencing data in each period to determine if random the Commission conducted weighting analyses to distribution resulted in a generally even distribution determine whether those differences substantially of cases—both among judges in each city in the contributed to differences in caseload compositions three periods and across the three periods in each among the 30 cities’ judges in terms of their average city with respect to the city’s total caseload. In the percent differences or corresponding differences in majority of cities, random assignment resulted in the 30 cities’ total spreads and standard deviations. 65 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline ALEXANDRIA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline ALEXANDRIA USSG §2B1.1 17.2% 16.7% 19.7% USSG §2D1.1 41.7% 36.2% 31.5% 18.5% 18.0% 16.7% 15.7% 16.6% 39.7% 42.9% 39.1% 47.0% 41.4% 6.0% 6.2% 2.9% 4.3% 4.8% 9.9% 6.8% 4.6% 5.2% 6.9% 25.8% 26.1% 36.8% 27.8% 30.3% 4298 4618 4947 4995 5909 6058 6194 17.2% 12.9% 16.0% 17.6% 21.8% 12.4% 18.0% 27.2% 37.1% 41.7% 34.3% 29.1% 49.6% 37.1% 7.2% 2.1% 4.0% 8.8% 6.7% 4.7% 6.6% 12.8% 20.7% 16.0% 14.7% 15.8% 13.2% 10.2% 35.6% 27.1% 22.3% 24.5% 26.7% 20.2% 28.1% Post-Report Period Judges 4298 4618 4947 4995 5909 6058 6194 18.1% 17.9% 10.9% 23.4% 19.0% 19.0% 30.8% 29.5% 40.0% 35.6% 30.1% 25.1% 35.4% 23.7% 8.6% 2.1% 9.7% 4.8% 4.6% 6.1% 7.6% 12.4% 10.4% 7.3% 16.7% 13.8% 10.9% 4.7% 31.4% 29.6% 36.4% 24.9% 37.4% 28.6% 33.2% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4298 4947 5909 6058 6194 Gall Period Judges 66 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2K2.1 4.8% 5.7% 6.2% USSG §2L1.2 6.7% 14.7% 10.8% OTHER 29.6% 26.7% 31.8% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline ATLANTA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline ATLANTA USSG §2B1.1 18.5% 14.7% 17.9% USSG §2D1.1 27.8% 24.9% 26.3% USSG §2K2.1 15.2% 12.4% 13.0% USSG §2L1.2 8.1% 18.9% 15.7% OTHER 30.4% 29.1% 27.2% 20.7% 5.5% 21.8% 24.5% 17.6% 13.8% 19.2% 21.5% 19.2% 15.3% 19.6% 21.6% 18.4% 34.2% 20.7% 18.9% 37.3% 26.6% 28.8% 28.0% 34.6% 22.0% 36.3% 25.0% 14.9% 27.4% 14.9% 13.2% 17.6% 14.9% 17.3% 12.9% 12.5% 10.2% 15.7% 11.4% 3.4% 19.2% 8.0% 11.3% 7.8% 4.3% 7.7% 3.2% 3.8% 16.9% 5.9% 13.6% 42.5% 13.7% 34.5% 32.1% 19.6% 40.4% 26.9% 34.4% 29.8% 35.6% 22.5% 28.4% 4045 4219 4515 4982 5071 5243 5324 5627 5981 6027 6082 6210 6217 6312 4.2% 9.6% 17.3% 21.1% 13.9% 7.0% 8.7% 32.0% 25.8% 14.6% 12.3% 20.8% 14.2% 5.3% 26.4% 11.3% 37.8% 18.3% 16.7% 30.1% 40.6% 20.0% 31.1% 18.5% 25.2% 9.4% 25.5% 31.6% 9.7% 18.3% 6.3% 6.4% 15.3% 14.0% 18.8% 18.7% 6.1% 12.1% 8.6% 24.5% 12.1% 19.7% 20.8% 40.0% 15.0% 19.3% 26.4% 21.0% 11.6% 4.0% 15.2% 15.9% 19.6% 26.4% 17.7% 9.2% 38.9% 20.9% 23.6% 34.9% 27.8% 28.0% 20.3% 25.3% 22.0% 38.9% 34.4% 18.9% 30.5% 34.2% Post-Report Period Judges 4219 4413 4515 4735 4982 5155 5222 5243 5324 5556 5981 6027 6082 6149 6217 11.3% 15.8% 7.4% 20.0% 17.8% 17.7% 36.4% 17.4% 11.8% 21.1% 14.6% 19.3% 19.3% 33.3% 13.1% 12.7% 29.8% 34.6% 23.9% 36.3% 23.9% 13.6% 24.9% 31.4% 10.5% 31.7% 29.2% 24.2% 13.6% 26.8% 7.0% 21.1% 21.0% 11.7% 10.7% 14.4% 9.1% 10.8% 9.8% 12.3% 9.8% 14.3% 13.5% 9.1% 19.2% 56.3% 14.0% 8.6% 15.2% 8.5% 12.9% 19.7% 19.7% 23.5% 36.8% 15.9% 13.0% 12.1% 21.2% 8.9% 12.7% 19.3% 28.4% 29.1% 26.7% 31.1% 21.2% 27.2% 23.5% 19.3% 28.0% 24.2% 30.9% 22.7% 31.9% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4045 4219 4515 5243 5556 5627 5981 6027 6082 6210 6217 6312 Gall Period Judges 67 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline BALTIMORE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline BALTIMORE USSG §2B1.1 9.1% 9.8% 11.9% USSG §2D1.1 36.4% 36.3% 39.3% USSG §2K2.1 22.8% 16.6% 15.7% 6.7% 12.7% 6.3% 13.4% 9.4% 6.3% 37.3% 30.4% 45.0% 32.0% 34.9% 37.8% 20.0% 21.6% 21.6% 27.8% 19.8% 25.2% 5.3% 7.8% 7.2% 6.2% 4.7% 7.9% 30.7% 27.5% 19.8% 20.6% 31.1% 22.8% 4240 4246 4296 5069 5848 6166 6200 5.6% 12.2% 7.9% 4.8% 11.7% 25.4% 10.9% 35.2% 36.7% 44.7% 35.3% 41.7% . . 27.3% 18.5% 15.4% 15.8% 21.0% 20.9% . . 12.7% 5.6% 4.3% 3.9% 4.2% 3.7% 18.6% 14.5% 35.2% 31.4% 27.6% 34.7% 22.1% 55.9% 34.5% Post-Report Period Judges 4240 4246 4296 4538 4691 4902 5069 5313 5848 10.5% 9.4% 11.0% 10.9% 9.2% 7.6% 14.8% 29.5% 14.4% 33.3% 48.8% 45.4% 42.0% 34.9% 37.4% 41.8% 8.2% 33.0% 12.3% 17.2% 10.6% 15.5% 17.1% 21.0% 17.5% 1.6% 15.4% 3.5% 2.0% 4.1% 4.6% 5.3% 6.7% 2.3% 1.6% 4.6% 40.4% 22.7% 28.9% 26.9% 33.6% 27.3% 23.6% 59.0% 32.6% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4240 4246 4296 5069 5848 6200 Gall Period Judges 68 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2L1.2 6.6% 5.7% 4.0% OTHER 25.1% 31.6% 29.1% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline BOSTON-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline BOSTON USSG §2B1.1 8.7% 12.9% 14.5% USSG §2D1.1 39.5% 37.6% 34.6% USSG §2K2.1 10.2% 12.2% 11.5% USSG §2L1.2 8.1% 8.0% 9.3% OTHER 33.5% 29.2% 30.1% 4.7% 10.9% 9.8% 14.1% 6.0% 6.1% 4.7% 9.3% 9.1% 5.5% 9.1% 13.8% 28.1% 43.6% 45.1% 42.4% 53.0% 59.1% 34.4% 38.7% 27.3% 41.8% 29.9% 25.9% 9.4% 12.7% 3.7% 2.4% 8.4% 12.1% 15.6% 10.7% 9.1% 12.7% 15.6% 15.5% 10.9% 5.5% 3.7% 8.2% 6.0% 7.6% 14.1% 5.3% 13.6% 5.5% 10.4% 6.9% 46.9% 27.3% 37.8% 32.9% 26.5% 15.2% 31.3% 36.0% 40.9% 34.5% 35.1% 37.9% 4007 4167 4321 4421 4736 4812 4850 4874 5784 5958 6340 23.7% 11.0% 10.4% 14.1% 12.2% 12.4% 5.7% 11.4% 18.6% 10.4% 14.3% 33.0% 51.0% 34.4% 27.1% 44.9% 43.8% 36.8% 36.0% 21.6% 36.8% 39.3% 12.4% 10.3% 17.7% 20.0% 11.2% 6.6% 11.3% 14.9% 15.5% 8.5% 9.8% 5.2% 6.9% 6.3% 10.6% 9.2% 9.1% 8.5% 7.0% 10.3% 8.5% 7.1% 25.8% 20.7% 31.3% 28.2% 22.4% 28.1% 37.7% 30.7% 34.0% 35.8% 29.5% Post-Report Period Judges 4007 4135 4321 4421 4736 4812 4850 4874 5784 5958 6340 23.0% 13.7% 14.6% 13.9% 14.5% 14.9% 13.5% 14.9% 14.0% 16.4% 8.8% 34.1% 26.6% 25.5% 39.8% 35.5% 36.3% 32.4% 34.3% 33.5% 32.1% 46.4% 13.3% 13.7% 12.7% 9.0% 10.1% 16.1% 10.1% 6.0% 10.1% 14.9% 8.8% 5.2% 7.9% 7.6% 13.3% 7.2% 8.3% 11.5% 13.4% 7.3% 10.4% 11.6% 24.4% 38.1% 39.5% 24.1% 32.6% 24.4% 32.4% 31.3% 35.2% 26.1% 24.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4007 4167 4321 4421 4443 4736 4812 4850 4874 5784 5958 6340 Gall Period Judges 69 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline CHARLOTTE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline CHARLOTTE USSG §2D1.1 37.7% 35.7% 31.6% USSG §2K2.1 28.9% 18.7% 18.0% USSG §2L1.2 8.7% 12.0% 10.9% OTHER 18.3% 19.2% 26.8% 5.5% 4.7% 9.2% 4.9% 24.8% 40.6% 29.3% 49.8% 34.9% 30.5% 35.4% 19.3% 12.8% 7.0% 11.8% 4.9% 22.0% 17.2% 14.4% 21.0% 4541 5437 5442 20.3% 11.7% 9.9% 30.1% 29.1% 50.8% 16.7% 22.6% 16.8% 11.8% 14.8% 8.9% 21.1% 21.7% 13.6% Post-Report Period Judges 4541 5437 5442 17.2% 14.1% 5.5% 26.0% 23.1% 49.5% 18.0% 19.6% 15.8% 11.8% 12.5% 7.9% 27.0% 30.7% 21.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4541 5064 5437 5442 Gall Period Judges 70 | USSG §2B1.1 6.3% 14.4% 12.7% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline CHICAGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline CHICAGO USSG §2B1.1 17.4% 21.2% 27.7% USSG §2D1.1 36.2% 32.1% 29.3% USSG §2K2.1 5.7% 4.5% 7.9% USSG §2L1.2 7.8% 14.3% 10.5% OTHER 33.0% 27.9% 24.6% 21.1% 11.9% 12.2% 18.3% 15.3% 21.3% 11.1% 19.5% 13.7% 8.8% 25.9% 21.2% 13.1% 21.5% 25.6% 19.4% 16.5% 16.9% 26.8% 32.1% 44.6% 39.4% 37.5% 37.1% 48.9% 42.9% 39.7% 29.8% 20.7% 47.0% 42.6% 30.4% 33.3% 19.4% 35.2% 37.3% 4.2% 11.9% 4.1% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% 6.7% 5.2% 6.8% . . 5.2% 1.5% 8.2% 7.6% 3.8% 6.0% 7.7% 4.8% 7.0% 9.5% 9.5% 11.3% 8.3% 6.7% 6.7% 9.1% . . 7.0% 8.6% 4.5% 9.8% 10.1% 9.0% 11.9% 6.6% 6.0% 40.8% 34.5% 29.7% 26.8% 33.3% 29.2% 26.7% 23.4% 39.7% 54.4% 39.7% 25.8% 26.2% 30.4% 28.2% 43.3% 34.1% 34.9% 4076 4123 4143 4336 4506 4516 4643 4649 4763 4839 4841 4989 5032 5135 5430 5447 5611 5639 5746 5899 6131 6158 18.3% 29.9% 31.4% 19.8% 19.8% 32.2% 14.0% 12.0% 19.2% 17.0% 14.8% 26.1% 31.8% 9.3% 26.8% 16.4% 18.6% 33.3% 19.3% 19.8% 17.0% 29.6% 44.2% 35.9% 25.5% 39.6% 31.3% 19.5% 32.3% 38.7% 39.4% 40.9% 28.1% 14.5% 21.2% 41.1% 17.9% 28.8% 29.9% 23.4% 38.5% 39.6% 33.0% 19.7% 0.8% 0.9% 5.9% 2.8% 6.3% 10.3% 23.7% 4.0% 2.9% 4.5% 0.8% 8.7% 3.5% 4.7% 3.6% 5.5% 2.1% 2.7% 3.7% 3.1% 1.1% 4.2% 13.3% 10.3% 11.8% 8.5% 17.7% 13.8% 11.8% 16.0% 9.6% 12.5% 15.6% 21.7% 12.9% 13.1% 26.8% 20.5% 16.5% 13.5% 11.0% 15.6% 13.8% 18.3% 23.3% 23.1% 25.5% 29.2% 25.0% 24.1% 18.3% 29.3% 28.8% 25.0% 40.6% 29.0% 30.6% 31.8% 25.0% 28.8% 33.0% 27.0% 27.5% 21.9% 35.1% 28.2% Post-Report Period Judges 4123 4143 4188 4336 4506 4516 4643 4649 USSG §2B1.1 29.7% 31.1% 24.8% 23.5% 24.8% 32.6% 23.3% 35.5% USSG §2D1.1 33.1% 14.8% 23.4% 34.6% 39.7% 27.1% 26.2% 16.4% USSG §2K2.1 5.1% 14.8% 8.8% 8.1% 6.6% 3.5% 16.3% 7.9% USSG §2L1.2 11.9% 18.0% 9.5% 5.9% 8.3% 12.5% 15.1% 10.5% OTHER 20.3% 21.3% 33.6% 27.9% 20.7% 24.3% 19.2% 29.6% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4076 4123 4336 4506 4513 4649 4763 4839 4841 4989 5032 5107 5135 5447 5639 5746 5899 6131 Gall Period Judges 71 4143 4336 4506 4516 4643 4649 4763 4839 4841 4989 5032 5135 5430 5447 5611 5639 5746 5899 6131 6158 Intra-City January 2019 31.4% 19.8% 19.8% 32.2% Differences in 14.0% 12.0% 19.2% 17.0% 14.8% 26.1% 31.8% 9.3% 26.8% 16.4% 18.6% 33.3% 19.3% 19.8% 17.0% 29.6% Federal 25.5% 39.6% 31.3% 19.5% Sentencing 32.3% 38.7% 39.4% 40.9% 28.1% 14.5% 21.2% 41.1% 17.9% 28.8% 29.9% 23.4% 38.5% 39.6% 33.0% 19.7% Practices 5.9% 2.8% 6.3% 10.3% 23.7% 4.0% 2.9% 4.5% 0.8% 8.7% 3.5% 4.7% 3.6% 5.5% 2.1% 2.7% 3.7% 3.1% 1.1% 4.2% 11.8% 8.5% 17.7% 13.8% 11.8% 16.0% 9.6% 12.5% 15.6% 21.7% 12.9% 13.1% 26.8% 20.5% 16.5% 13.5% 11.0% 15.6% 13.8% 18.3% 25.5% 29.2% 25.0% 24.1% 18.3% 29.3% 28.8% 25.0% 40.6% 29.0% 30.6% 31.8% 25.0% 28.8% 33.0% 27.0% 27.5% 21.9% 35.1% 28.2% USSG §2K2.1 5.1% 14.8% 8.8% 8.1% 6.6% 3.5% 16.3% 7.9% 8.8% 5.8% 6.9% 7.6% 6.1% 2.4% 9.0% 3.3% 15.1% 6.5% 6.8% 9.1% 9.3% 10.9% 4.7% 8.9% USSG §2L1.2 11.9% 18.0% 9.5% 5.9% 8.3% 12.5% 15.1% 10.5% 9.6% 9.1% 8.3% 12.2% 16.7% 10.7% 7.7% 15.7% 11.0% 9.8% 10.2% 12.1% 7.8% 8.9% 9.4% 8.9% OTHER 20.3% 21.3% 33.6% 27.9% 20.7% 24.3% 19.2% 29.6% 30.9% 32.5% 21.5% 29.0% 21.2% 17.9% 28.8% 24.0% 20.5% 20.3% 23.7% 25.8% 23.3% 35.6% 17.2% 17.2% CHICAGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued Post-Report Period Judges 4123 4143 4188 4336 4506 4516 4643 4649 4760 4763 4839 4841 4989 5032 5135 5430 5486 5611 5639 5694 5746 5969 6106 6131 72 | USSG §2B1.1 29.7% 31.1% 24.8% 23.5% 24.8% 32.6% 23.3% 35.5% 35.3% 26.0% 28.5% 26.0% 22.7% 20.2% 16.7% 24.8% 28.8% 35.0% 25.4% 22.7% 26.4% 28.7% 30.5% 35.0% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2D1.1 33.1% 14.8% 23.4% 34.6% 39.7% 27.1% 26.2% 16.4% 15.4% 26.6% 34.7% 25.2% 33.3% 48.8% 37.8% 32.2% 24.7% 28.5% 33.9% 30.3% 33.3% 15.8% 38.3% 30.0% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline CLEVELAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline CLEVELAND USSG §2B1.1 15.8% 17.6% 14.7% USSG §2D1.1 33.9% 21.8% 30.0% USSG §2K2.1 21.3% 29.8% 24.2% 12.0% 22.6% 33.3% 17.7% 11.3% 13.7% 17.5% 10.7% 11.9% 40.7% 28.3% 23.8% 31.5% 33.0% 30.4% 28.9% 43.0% 36.6% 16.7% 17.0% 17.9% 19.4% 33.0% 26.5% 27.8% 13.4% 21.8% 4471 4688 5086 5235 5408 5489 5591 6049 15.2% 16.3% 25.0% 13.8% 16.0% 28.4% 17.3% 9.2% 26.6% 27.6% 8.7% 29.4% 18.5% 10.2% 30.9% 18.4% 19.0% 32.7% 35.9% 31.2% 33.3% 18.2% 30.9% 35.6% 8.9% 2.0% 6.5% 2.8% 6.2% 2.3% 2.7% 10.3% 30.4% 21.4% 23.9% 22.9% 25.9% 40.9% 18.2% 26.4% Post-Report Period Judges 4688 5086 5235 5408 5591 6049 13.2% 11.2% 16.2% 16.3% 13.0% 16.4% 34.3% 33.6% 37.1% 25.4% 19.5% 29.0% 21.9% 29.3% 22.8% 21.5% 25.5% 27.1% 1.7% 3.4% 0.8% 2.9% 1.5% 2.8% 28.9% 22.4% 23.2% 34.0% 40.5% 24.8% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4471 4517 4688 5086 5235 5408 5489 5591 6049 Gall Period Judges USSG §2L1.2 3.0% 5.0% 2.0% . 2.8% 7.5% 8.3% 4.8% 0.9% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% . OTHER 26.0% 25.8% 29.1% 27.8% 24.5% 16.7% 26.6% 21.7% 28.4% 25.8% 30.9% 26.7% 73 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline COLUMBUS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline COLUMBUS USSG §2B1.1 17.7% 14.9% 12.0% USSG §2D1.1 36.9% 32.0% 29.8% USSG §2K2.1 17.0% 10.6% 16.6% 22.6% 16.7% 26.0% 19.2% 7.5% 45.3% 28.3% 26.0% 44.2% 40.3% 18.9% 15.0% 16.0% 11.5% 22.4% 4285 4301 5595 5771 5930 6261 22.0% 13.3% 14.3% 13.8% 9.8% 18.0% 37.8% 41.3% 29.8% 26.3% 27.2% 30.0% 7.3% 6.7% 16.7% 12.5% 9.8% 10.0% 6.1% 10.7% 10.7% 12.5% 10.9% 10.0% 26.8% 28.0% 28.6% 35.0% 42.4% 32.0% Post-Report Period Judges 4285 4301 5462 5595 5771 5930 6261 7.8% 11.6% 8.4% 16.2% 14.5% 10.8% 15.9% 33.0% 34.1% 26.5% 29.1% 24.8% 31.8% 22.7% 17.9% 17.7% 18.1% 10.8% 14.5% 20.9% 15.9% 6.1% 10.4% 10.8% 7.4% 6.8% 4.7% 10.2% 35.2% 26.2% 36.1% 36.5% 39.3% 31.8% 35.2% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4285 4301 5595 5771 5930 Gall Period Judges 74 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2L1.2 3.5% 10.2% 7.8% . 3.8% 8.3% 2.0% 3.0% . OTHER 24.8% 32.4% 33.9% 9.4% 31.7% 30.0% 25.0% 26.9% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline DALLAS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline DALLAS USSG §2B1.1 24.2% 24.4% 13.1% USSG §2D1.1 19.8% 19.5% 33.6% USSG §2K2.1 13.0% 11.6% 15.1% USSG §2L1.2 12.1% 15.0% 19.6% OTHER 30.8% 29.4% 18.6% 17.6% 30.9% 23.7% 18.3% 31.9% 27.0% 24.0% 21.0% 25.3% 17.0% 31.6% 13.4% 12.5% 27.0% 22.7% 8.6% 29.7% 9.6% 9.2% 12.2% 11.1% 9.0% 8.0% 13.6% 6.6% 12.8% 10.5% 18.3% 13.9% 9.0% 8.0% 18.5% 20.9% 29.8% 25.0% 37.8% 30.6% 28.1% 37.3% 38.3% 4121 5058 5525 5775 5879 6281 6349 11.5% 22.7% 34.5% 35.7% 27.3% 22.2% 17.9% 42.7% 13.5% 9.2% 12.4% 14.1% 20.5% 23.4% 7.6% 18.4% 10.6% 13.2% 6.1% 9.4% 13.8% 14.5% 10.6% 13.4% 14.0% 24.2% 16.2% 15.2% 23.7% 34.8% 32.4% 24.8% 28.3% 31.6% 29.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4121 5058 5525 5775 5879 6281 6349 11.4% 14.6% 16.4% 11.9% 12.8% 10.9% 13.4% 38.2% 29.8% 31.7% 32.2% 37.3% 26.5% 37.2% 15.5% 18.9% 17.6% 17.7% 4.7% 22.4% 11.8% 15.5% 19.2% 16.4% 20.9% 24.5% 21.1% 19.4% 19.4% 17.5% 17.9% 17.4% 20.6% 19.2% 18.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4025 4121 4840 5058 5525 5775 6281 6349 Gall Period Judges 75 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline DENVER-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF COLORADO Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline DENVER USSG §2D1.1 16.1% 13.6% 15.8% USSG §2K2.1 19.0% 17.3% 25.1% USSG §2L1.2 33.2% 40.6% 27.1% OTHER 25.7% 22.1% 23.4% 7.2% 8.6% 4.6% 4.2% 3.8% 6.8% 30.4% 10.2% 10.8% 16.0% 15.2% 12.9% 15.2% 18.0% 16.9% 19.4% 22.8% 23.5% 22.5% 41.4% 34.6% 35.4% 34.2% 31.8% 24.6% 21.9% 33.1% 25.0% 24.1% 25.0% 4563 5045 5312 5725 6022 6154 6317 6.5% 6.4% 8.3% 3.6% 3.4% 10.4% 8.0% 9.1% 16.2% 5.2% 19.3% 10.2% 16.7% 16.0% 15.7% 18.4% 15.6% 15.7% 25.9% 16.7% 14.1% 47.4% 38.9% 43.8% 38.6% 45.6% 21.9% 40.4% 21.3% 20.1% 27.1% 22.9% 15.0% 34.4% 21.6% Post-Report Period Judges 4307 4563 5045 5325 5725 5871 6022 6154 6317 6.5% 6.8% 8.7% 8.8% 11.1% 5.4% 7.8% 13.3% 9.1% 21.2% 8.5% 17.5% 14.0% 11.1% 16.2% 18.3% 6.0% 21.8% 23.4% 30.5% 27.9% 31.6% 22.2% 27.7% 23.7% 16.9% 23.4% 22.3% 25.4% 24.0% 28.7% 28.2% 25.4% 32.0% 28.9% 27.9% 26.6% 28.8% 21.9% 16.9% 27.4% 25.4% 18.3% 34.9% 17.8% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4100 5045 5088 5312 5625 6317 Gall Period Judges 76 | USSG §2B1.1 6.0% 6.4% 8.6% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline DETROIT-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline DETROIT USSG §2B1.1 17.1% 18.6% 19.6% USSG §2D1.1 30.7% 33.3% 21.6% USSG §2K2.1 14.4% 13.1% 25.3% 12.7% 6.6% 24.2% 20.6% 16.7% 26.4% 15.4% 14.0% 23.0% 9.8% 20.0% 23.6% 23.0% 30.6% 23.8% 42.4% 20.8% 50.0% 34.9% 24.6% 32.8% 30.0% 25.5% 16.4% 9.7% 23.8% 10.6% 15.1% 13.5% 9.3% 18.0% 8.2% 11.7% 9.1% 9.8% 8.1% 4.8% 7.6% 9.4% 1.9% 1.2% 6.6% 4.9% 5.0% 29.1% 44.3% 27.4% 27.0% 22.7% 28.3% 19.2% 40.7% 27.9% 44.3% 33.3% 4046 4442 4459 4462 4601 4945 5037 5238 5400 5406 5504 5550 12.9% 6.9% 23.6% 34.8% 20.0% 17.0% 18.3% 26.8% 11.4% 24.2% 22.2% 14.1% 34.1% 44.6% 36.0% 30.4% 47.7% 34.0% 38.0% 28.0% 32.9% 20.0% 25.9% 31.0% 17.6% 13.9% 15.7% 14.5% 9.2% 20.8% 12.7% 12.2% 4.0% 10.5% 17.3% 18.3% 11.8% 3.0% 4.5% 2.9% 3.1% 3.8% 5.6% 8.5% 4.0% 7.4% 2.5% 5.6% 23.5% 31.7% 20.2% 17.4% 20.0% 24.5% 25.4% 24.4% 47.7% 37.9% 32.1% 31.0% Post-Report Period Judges 4046 4442 4459 4462 4601 4762 5037 5238 5333 5400 5406 5504 5550 5904 5984 6080 6148 6153 18.6% 20.9% 27.2% 15.7% 20.8% 22.1% 10.5% 16.7% 20.8% 23.4% 22.4% 25.4% 25.4% 10.7% 21.2% 19.6% 21.9% 13.4% 16.8% 29.9% 11.6% 27.8% 24.5% 17.2% 36.8% 22.7% 23.4% 27.0% 25.9% 19.8% 26.8% 15.0% 28.5% 12.5% 18.0% 7.6% 22.1% 9.0% 14.3% 13.0% 13.2% 17.2% 14.7% 22.0% 32.5% 21.6% 16.4% 22.2% 16.7% 61.5% 17.9% 41.1% 21.9% 59.7% 2.7% 5.6% 6.1% 12.2% 11.3% 4.9% 6.3% 6.8% 5.2% 1.8% 7.8% 4.0% 5.8% 1.3% 5.3% 5.4% 9.4% . . 39.8% 34.5% 40.8% 31.3% 30.2% 38.5% 31.6% 31.8% 18.2% 26.1% 27.6% 28.6% 25.4% 11.5% 27.2% 21.4% 28.9% 19.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4046 4442 4459 4462 4601 5037 5238 5400 5406 5550 5984 Gall Period Judges USSG §2L1.2 6.0% 5.2% 5.3% OTHER 31.8% 29.8% 28.2% 77 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline HOUSTON-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline HOUSTON USSG §2B1.1 7.8% 8.0% 11.4% USSG §2D1.1 20.3% 10.9% 12.0% USSG §2K2.1 17.2% 8.3% 8.1% USSG §2L1.2 24.0% 51.2% 49.1% OTHER 30.7% 21.6% 19.5% 11.6% 8.0% 7.2% 9.4% 5.2% 5.4% 7.3% 3.4% 10.6% 14.0% 24.2% 23.0% 24.7% 28.3% 22.2% 21.3% 14.6% 14.8% 9.4% 12.8% 22.1% 17.0% 18.6% 22.8% 16.3% 10.0% 16.7% 21.6% 22.4% 15.1% 17.9% 17.0% 25.8% 15.7% 14.8% 38.9% 19.8% 29.5% 20.0% 25.6% 24.2% 35.0% 23.7% 23.6% 41.5% 24.3% 41.7% 30.7% 37.6% 32.6% 4104 4166 4281 4370 4615 4674 4861 5111 5846 5857 6081 6.3% 6.5% 6.3% 7.1% 14.7% 9.7% 9.2% 5.8% 3.7% 13.7% 8.5% 9.2% 7.2% 11.7% 7.1% 11.5% 14.0% 5.5% 16.4% 14.6% 15.4% 4.5% 6.7% 7.2% 9.3% 7.1% 7.9% 8.2% 12.4% 9.1% 8.1% 9.4% 6.5% 60.5% 59.7% 46.8% 52.0% 46.6% 48.0% 49.5% 54.5% 52.8% 17.9% 62.3% 17.2% 19.4% 25.9% 26.8% 19.4% 20.1% 23.4% 14.2% 20.7% 43.6% 18.1% Post-Report Period Judges 4104 4166 4281 4370 4615 4674 4861 5111 5846 5857 6081 16.7% 9.9% 9.2% 10.2% 11.4% 9.6% 12.4% 14.0% 6.7% 18.1% 10.4% 10.4% 13.2% 13.6% 10.2% 10.8% 13.3% 6.8% 11.9% 19.2% 18.8% 5.0% 5.6% 8.0% 6.5% 8.3% 8.5% 7.0% 6.4% 10.4% 9.9% 9.4% 9.6% 51.7% 44.3% 53.1% 53.1% 50.0% 54.2% 59.0% 47.5% 43.8% 6.5% 56.5% 15.6% 24.5% 17.7% 18.1% 19.3% 15.9% 15.4% 16.2% 20.4% 47.1% 18.5% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4104 4166 4281 4370 4615 4674 4861 5846 5857 6081 Gall Period Judges 78 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline LOS ANGELES-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline LOS ANGELES USSG §2B1.1 14.7% 18.2% 21.8% USSG §2D1.1 25.8% 35.5% 37.0% USSG §2K2.1 6.8% 5.7% 5.9% USSG §2L1.2 15.9% 8.3% 7.1% OTHER 36.8% 32.3% 28.2% 10.6% 16.1% 22.9% 10.8% 12.4% 10.5% 14.7% 12.5% 18.6% 11.5% 16.9% 25.4% 11.2% 19.1% 12.5% 41.5% 12.5% 21.4% 21.6% 25.8% 22.4% 29.3% 33.3% 34.0% 17.7% 32.6% 16.4% 36.0% 11.2% 22.5% 6.4% 8.9% 4.3% 6.9% 9.3% 10.5% 4.0% 10.4% 2.1% 8.3% 4.5% 4.5% 7.9% 9.0% 3.8% 11.7% 16.1% 21.4% 16.7% 17.5% 15.8% 17.3% 12.5% 17.5% 12.5% 18.0% 20.9% 10.1% 16.9% 16.3% 29.8% 46.4% 30.0% 44.1% 35.1% 40.8% 34.7% 31.3% 27.8% 50.0% 28.1% 32.8% 34.8% 43.8% 45.0% 4273 4592 4680 4787 5028 5157 5247 5435 5484 5533 5542 5646 5903 5919 5939 5943 6146 6280 12.7% 21.3% 17.9% 16.7% 11.1% 23.5% 9.0% 18.5% 16.3% 21.0% 28.6% 19.1% 24.6% 16.7% 16.3% 24.2% 18.9% 23.4% 48.1% 36.8% 39.8% 28.9% 49.8% 20.0% 41.9% 41.7% 28.6% 46.8% 25.5% 30.6% 27.0% 23.1% 30.8% 43.0% 26.8% 39.4% 4.4% 7.7% 5.7% 8.8% 3.4% 4.3% 5.2% 4.6% 6.1% 3.2% 5.1% 5.8% 7.1% 9.3% 7.6% 3.6% 5.5% 4.3% 4.4% 7.7% 4.9% 7.0% 6.8% 8.7% 14.2% 5.6% 13.6% 6.5% 10.2% 18.5% 3.2% 14.8% 7.0% 5.5% 2.4% 5.3% 30.4% 26.5% 31.7% 38.6% 29.0% 43.5% 29.7% 29.6% 35.4% 22.6% 30.6% 26.0% 38.1% 36.1% 38.4% 23.6% 46.5% 27.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4273 4592 4632 4680 4787 4913 5028 5053 5157 5166 5247 5435 5484 5542 USSG §2B1.1 20.3% 24.3% 12.3% 31.7% 15.4% 17.8% 20.3% 20.7% 32.6% 25.5% 27.9% 25.0% 15.0% 10.7% USSG §2D1.1 38.6% 29.7% 37.0% 32.5% 48.5% 45.4% 42.9% 39.6% 22.0% 45.1% 34.7% 35.0% 38.1% 38.1% USSG §2L1.2 5.2% 6.8% 8.2% 5.7% 6.2% 6.5% 6.6% 5.4% 7.1% 4.9% 2.7% 3.3% 9.7% 7.7% OTHER 32.0% 31.8% 26.0% 26.8% 26.2% 22.2% 26.9% 22.5% 34.8% 17.6% 28.4% 33.3% 30.1% 37.5% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4273 4453 4592 4710 4787 4922 5028 5157 5247 5435 5484 5542 5755 5919 5943 Gall Period Judges USSG §2K2.1 3.9% 7.4% 16.4% 3.3% 3.8% 8.1% 3.3% 11.7% 3.5% 6.9% 6.3% 3.3% 7.1% 6.0% 79 5943 Gall Period Judges 4273 4592 4680 4787 5028 5157 5247 5435 5484 5533 5542 5646 5903 5919 5939 5943 6146 6280 12.5% 22.5% 3.8% 16.3% 45.0% 12.7% 48.1% 17.9% 16.7% 11.1% 23.5% 9.0% 18.5% 16.3% 21.0% 28.6% 19.1% 24.6% 16.7% 16.3% 24.2% 18.9% 23.4% 39.8% 28.9% 49.8% 20.0% 41.9% 41.7% 28.6% 46.8% 25.5% 30.6% 27.0% 23.1% 30.8% 43.0% 26.8% 39.4% 4.4% 7.7% 5.7% 8.8% 3.4% 4.3% 5.2% 4.6% 6.1% 3.2% 5.1% 5.8% 7.1% 9.3% 7.6% 3.6% 5.5% 4.3% 4.4% 7.7% 4.9% 7.0% 6.8% 8.7% 14.2% 5.6% 13.6% 6.5% 10.2% 18.5% 3.2% 14.8% 7.0% 5.5% 2.4% 5.3% 30.4% 26.5% 31.7% 38.6% 29.0% 43.5% 29.7% 29.6% 35.4% 22.6% 30.6% 26.0% 38.1% 36.1% 38.4% 23.6% 46.5% 27.7% USSG §2B1.1 20.3% 24.3% 12.3% 31.7% 15.4% 17.8% 20.3% 20.7% 32.6% 25.5% 27.9% 25.0% 15.0% 10.7% 26.7% 25.8% 14.5% 18.7% 22.9% 21.5% USSG §2D1.1 38.6% 29.7% 37.0% 32.5% 48.5% 45.4% 42.9% 39.6% 22.0% 45.1% 34.7% 35.0% 38.1% 38.1% 27.7% 35.2% 39.6% 34.4% 38.9% 42.3% USSG §2L1.2 5.2% 6.8% 8.2% 5.7% 6.2% 6.5% 6.6% 5.4% 7.1% 4.9% 2.7% 3.3% 9.7% 7.7% 17.5% 9.3% 6.3% 11.0% 2.9% 6.0% OTHER 32.0% 31.8% 26.0% 26.8% 26.2% 22.2% 26.9% 22.5% 34.8% 17.6% 28.4% 33.3% 30.1% 37.5% 24.3% 24.2% 31.4% 32.1% 28.6% 22.1% Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices 21.3% 36.8% January 2019 LOS ANGELES-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued Post-Report Period Judges 4273 4592 4632 4680 4787 4913 5028 5053 5157 5166 5247 5435 5484 5542 5646 5903 5919 5939 6146 6282 80 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2K2.1 3.9% 7.4% 16.4% 3.3% 3.8% 8.1% 3.3% 11.7% 3.5% 6.9% 6.3% 3.3% 7.1% 6.0% 3.9% 5.5% 8.2% 3.8% 6.9% 8.1% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline MANHATTAN USSG §2B1.1 13.5% 17.8% 21.7% USSG §2D1.1 40.2% 38.0% 43.2% USSG §2K2.1 9.1% 7.1% 7.4% USSG §2L1.2 12.2% 14.6% 3.9% OTHER 25.0% 22.4% 23.8% 4169 4173 4178 4215 4226 4341 4436 4551 4626 4789 4838 4909 5173 5183 5231 5261 5355 5507 5522 5590 5635 5669 5681 5720 5727 5778 5822 6071 6084 6188 6305 6329 18.6% 12.1% 18.9% 13.4% 24.6% 3.2% 19.1% 6.3% 12.5% 10.7% 12.8% 11.2% 8.3% 9.4% 10.0% 18.5% 12.9% 5.9% 21.4% 15.5% 24.2% 12.7% 10.1% 10.5% 11.7% 17.6% 11.1% 7.9% 8.1% 17.2% 12.0% 13.3% 40.2% 51.5% 40.6% 41.1% 34.4% 64.5% 32.6% 46.9% 30.0% 29.3% 31.4% 35.7% 33.3% 38.5% 52.5% 29.6% 38.8% 56.4% 38.8% 60.6% 32.3% 35.4% 59.7% 41.0% 45.6% 25.5% 31.5% 36.6% 22.6% 29.0% 40.0% 47.6% 8.2% 5.3% 9.4% 6.3% 8.2% 1.6% 15.7% . . 16.3% 8.0% 11.6% 12.2% 10.0% 8.3% 2.5% 9.3% 10.3% 8.9% 6.1% . . 7.3% 10.1% 6.2% 11.4% 5.8% 13.7% 3.7% 19.8% 32.3% 6.5% 12.0% 7.6% 8.2% 14.4% 11.3% 6.3% 13.1% 12.9% 15.7% 4.7% 12.5% 6.7% 15.1% 10.2% 21.7% 18.8% 13.8% 12.0% 10.3% 11.9% 12.2% 9.9% 8.1% 11.4% 10.1% 11.4% 17.5% 5.9% 13.0% 9.9% 21.0% 11.8% 16.0% 20.0% 24.7% 16.7% 19.8% 33.0% 19.7% 17.7% 16.9% 42.2% 28.8% 45.3% 29.1% 30.6% 26.7% 25.0% 21.3% 30.6% 27.6% 16.8% 21.4% 14.1% 28.2% 30.4% 14.0% 25.7% 19.4% 37.3% 40.7% 25.7% 16.1% 35.5% 20.0% 11.4% Gall Period Judges USSG §2B1.1 17.6% 14.2% 21.0% 18.6% 18.5% 13.2% 18.5% 16.2% 27.9% 13.2% 19.7% 12.6% 7.5% 5.1% 15.4% 19.5% 19.6% USSG §2D1.1 42.9% 37.8% 25.2% 27.1% 23.1% 39.7% 45.2% 35.4% 29.1% 43.9% 29.1% 36.2% 41.8% 45.8% 49.6% 28.9% 44.6% USSG §2K2.1 7.6% 11.8% 8.4% 8.5% 6.2% 4.4% 4.0% 6.1% 8.1% 4.4% 11.1% 5.5% 14.9% 15.3% 7.7% 5.5% 1.8% USSG §2L1.2 11.2% 15.7% 23.5% 22.0% 20.0% 16.9% 10.5% 20.2% 11.6% 9.6% 9.4% 18.9% 14.9% 20.3% 13.7% 10.2% 16.1% OTHER 20.6% 20.5% 21.8% 23.7% 32.3% 25.7% 21.8% 22.2% 23.3% 28.9% 30.8% 26.8% 20.9% 13.6% 13.7% 35.9% 17.9% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4169 4173 4178 4190 4215 4226 4436 4469 4551 4626 4761 4909 5164 5183 5231 5261 5355 81 4909 5173 5183 5231 5261 5355 5507 5522 5590 5635 5669 5681 5720 5727 5778 5822 6071 6084 6188 6305 6329 Intra-City January 2019 11.2% 8.3% 9.4% 10.0% Differences in 18.5% 12.9% 5.9% 21.4% 15.5% 24.2% 12.7% 10.1% 10.5% 11.7% 17.6% 11.1% 7.9% 8.1% 17.2% 12.0% 13.3% Federal 35.7% 33.3% 38.5% 52.5% Sentencing 29.6% 38.8% 56.4% 38.8% 60.6% 32.3% 35.4% 59.7% 41.0% 45.6% 25.5% 31.5% 36.6% 22.6% 29.0% 40.0% 47.6% Practices 12.2% 10.0% 8.3% 2.5% 9.3% 10.3% 8.9% 6.1% . . 7.3% 10.1% 6.2% 11.4% 5.8% 13.7% 3.7% 19.8% 32.3% 6.5% 12.0% 7.6% 10.2% 21.7% 18.8% 13.8% 12.0% 10.3% 11.9% 12.2% 9.9% 8.1% 11.4% 10.1% 11.4% 17.5% 5.9% 13.0% 9.9% 21.0% 11.8% 16.0% 20.0% 30.6% 26.7% 25.0% 21.3% 30.6% 27.6% 16.8% 21.4% 14.1% 28.2% 30.4% 14.0% 25.7% 19.4% 37.3% 40.7% 25.7% 16.1% 35.5% 20.0% 11.4% USSG §2K2.1 7.6% 11.8% 8.4% 8.5% 6.2% 4.4% 4.0% 6.1% 8.1% 4.4% 11.1% 5.5% 14.9% 15.3% 7.7% 5.5% 1.8% 4.4% 6.7% 5.6% 11.8% 4.7% 5.4% 4.3% 8.9% 6.6% 8.7% 9.1% 6.1% 5.2% 8.1% USSG §2L1.2 11.2% 15.7% 23.5% 22.0% 20.0% 16.9% 10.5% 20.2% 11.6% 9.6% 9.4% 18.9% 14.9% 20.3% 13.7% 10.2% 16.1% 11.0% 17.8% 11.1% 10.2% 13.5% 13.9% 11.4% 19.5% 19.0% 13.5% 9.8% 20.2% 11.7% 15.4% OTHER 20.6% 20.5% 21.8% 23.7% 32.3% 25.7% 21.8% 22.2% 23.3% 28.9% 30.8% 26.8% 20.9% 13.6% 13.7% 35.9% 17.9% 20.6% 18.9% 14.8% 12.6% 18.2% 7.2% 30.0% 18.7% 32.2% 26.9% 30.8% 14.0% 27.3% 25.7% MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued Gall Period Judges 4169 4173 4178 4190 4215 4226 4436 4469 4551 4626 4761 4909 5164 5183 5231 5261 5355 5507 5522 5590 5635 5669 5681 5720 5727 5778 6071 6084 6188 6305 6329 82 | USSG §2B1.1 17.6% 14.2% 21.0% 18.6% 18.5% 13.2% 18.5% 16.2% 27.9% 13.2% 19.7% 12.6% 7.5% 5.1% 15.4% 19.5% 19.6% 28.7% 14.4% 24.1% 27.6% 16.9% 15.1% 20.0% 16.3% 11.6% 25.0% 27.3% 15.8% 14.3% 12.5% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2D1.1 42.9% 37.8% 25.2% 27.1% 23.1% 39.7% 45.2% 35.4% 29.1% 43.9% 29.1% 36.2% 41.8% 45.8% 49.6% 28.9% 44.6% 35.3% 42.2% 44.4% 37.8% 46.6% 58.4% 34.3% 36.6% 30.6% 26.0% 23.1% 43.9% 41.6% 38.2% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES continued Post-Report Period Judges 4169 4173 4178 4190 4215 4226 4424 4469 4626 4699 4761 4866 4885 4909 4969 5164 5212 5228 5231 5261 5273 5355 5507 5522 5590 5635 5669 5681 5727 5778 5896 5971 6071 6188 6208 6241 6305 6329 USSG §2B1.1 13.9% 36.5% 22.2% 17.4% 39.7% 15.2% 6.7% 25.9% 12.0% 24.7% 23.5% 10.9% 19.1% 18.0% 27.9% 41.4% 16.2% 14.7% 26.4% 19.4% 33.0% 36.6% 6.2% 13.5% 23.0% 13.8% 25.9% 25.6% 27.0% 26.8% 23.2% 24.8% 19.1% 21.7% 23.0% 20.4% 23.9% 16.5% USSG §2D1.1 51.0% 28.4% 38.1% 38.4% 27.8% 44.4% 57.8% 34.8% 54.4% 48.1% 41.4% 54.5% 52.8% 50.6% 31.1% 28.8% 30.6% 44.1% 38.8% 55.8% 32.1% 36.1% 62.3% 54.6% 40.5% 62.5% 36.2% 38.1% 33.3% 37.8% 41.1% 43.6% 40.9% 42.0% 33.9% 48.7% 39.8% 62.4% USSG §2K2.1 8.8% 2.7% 6.3% 8.7% 6.6% 11.7% 15.6% 12.7% 3.2% 11.7% 8.6% 7.9% 10.1% 10.1% 1.6% 6.3% 8.7% 7.4% 10.7% 2.4% 8.5% 4.4% 8.0% 7.6% 6.8% 1.3% 3.4% 6.0% 10.6% 9.8% 14.3% 6.8% 7.8% 7.0% 4.4% 8.6% 8.8% 4.6% USSG §2L1.2 3.1% 2.7% 7.9% 2.3% 7.3% 4.1% 3.3% 5.7% 4.8% 2.6% 4.3% 5.0% 2.2% 4.5% 7.4% 4.5% 2.9% 1.5% 5.0% 1.8% . . 6.6% 1.2% 2.7% 4.1% 1.3% 5.2% 3.0% 5.0% 3.7% . . 0.8% 5.2% 8.9% 3.8% 4.6% 3.5% 2.8% OTHER 23.2% 29.7% 25.4% 33.1% 18.5% 24.6% 16.7% 20.9% 25.6% 13.0% 22.2% 21.8% 15.7% 16.9% 32.0% 18.9% 41.6% 32.4% 19.0% 20.6% 26.4% 16.4% 22.2% 21.6% 25.7% 21.1% 29.3% 27.4% 24.1% 22.0% 21.4% 24.1% 27.0% 20.4% 35.0% 17.8% 23.9% 13.8% 83 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline MEMPHIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline MEMPHIS USSG §2B1.1 20.8% 15.1% 14.9% USSG §2D1.1 20.6% 21.4% 28.6% USSG §2K2.1 30.5% 36.3% 33.6% 20.1% 17.1% 25.1% 21.3% 17.1% 23.5% 31.6% 32.6% 27.4% 2.3% 3.9% 2.2% 24.7% 29.3% 21.8% 4021 4684 4871 6221 15.3% 20.1% 17.1% 25.1% 15.9% 29.0% 21.6% 17.6% 41.2% 30.5% 39.8% 35.6% 6.5% 4.6% 1.9% 3.8% 21.2% 22.9% 20.5% 27.0% Post-Report Period Judges 4021 4684 5103 5130 6221 20.8% 11.4% 13.6% 17.3% 13.9% 25.2% 29.4% 28.5% 24.9% 34.0% 31.2% 37.9% 33.9% 36.5% 26.5% 2.4% 1.8% 1.2% 1.0% 2.1% 20.4% 19.5% 22.7% 20.3% 23.5% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4684 4871 6221 Gall Period Judges 84 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2L1.2 2.8% 4.0% 1.7% OTHER 25.3% 23.2% 21.2% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline MIAMI-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline MIAMI USSG §2B1.1 15.7% 26.0% 25.1% USSG §2D1.1 49.0% 35.7% 33.3% USSG §2K2.1 5.0% 5.7% 7.4% USSG §2L1.2 5.9% 6.9% 5.9% OTHER 24.3% 25.8% 28.2% 16.5% 11.4% 17.8% 17.7% 15.5% 19.9% 23.7% 13.5% 13.4% 22.2% 4.2% 8.8% 15.3% 48.9% 54.4% 37.8% 55.8% 49.7% 32.6% 40.5% 53.4% 54.5% 40.0% 60.5% 59.3% 54.5% 2.7% 3.8% 10.8% 3.9% 6.5% 2.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 2.8% 7.9% 2.2% 6.8% 3.2% 1.3% 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 10.6% 2.9% 6.1% 5.9% 7.2% 6.8% 8.8% 4.5% 28.7% 29.1% 27.0% 16.0% 21.9% 34.0% 28.9% 23.0% 21.9% 27.8% 20.5% 20.9% 18.8% 4141 4237 4348 4835 4889 5142 5191 5392 5463 5467 6206 6328 24.4% 17.4% 17.8% 21.9% 23.5% 37.5% 33.5% 27.5% 37.1% 21.3% 18.8% 27.6% 38.7% 36.8% 34.1% 44.6% 46.6% 28.2% 28.3% 31.9% 32.4% 24.6% 39.5% 40.1% 6.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.2% 3.0% 6.0% 4.7% 7.7% 6.3% 4.5% 5.9% 4.6% 4.1% 6.5% 10.3% 5.2% 4.7% 4.3% 7.3% 6.6% 5.9% 9.4% 11.8% 6.9% 26.3% 33.3% 31.3% 21.1% 22.1% 23.9% 26.2% 26.4% 18.4% 40.2% 24.0% 20.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4141 4237 4348 4635 4835 4889 4894 5191 5463 5467 5887 6185 6206 6308 6328 39.2% 16.7% 28.8% 21.9% 24.8% 20.9% 28.5% 24.2% 27.1% 21.5% 32.8% 13.5% 16.7% 32.4% 27.7% 29.6% 30.6% 33.3% 29.8% 37.2% 37.0% 33.8% 37.9% 34.1% 27.5% 33.3% 41.0% 28.4% 31.0% 35.0% 2.4% 8.1% 6.4% 8.4% 5.4% 6.1% 8.2% 10.6% 5.3% 8.8% 7.0% 8.5% 10.2% 9.5% 10.0% 3.2% 12.4% 2.0% 7.9% 2.8% 4.5% 4.7% 6.1% 5.8% 10.1% 4.3% 12.0% 11.2% 5.2% 3.5% 25.6% 32.3% 29.6% 31.9% 29.7% 31.6% 24.7% 21.2% 27.8% 32.1% 22.7% 25.0% 33.5% 21.9% 23.8% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4141 4237 4348 4835 4889 5142 5191 5392 5463 5467 6206 6324 6328 Gall Period Judges 85 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline MINNEAPOLIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline MINNEAPOLIS USSG §2B1.1 11.2% 11.9% 14.1% USSG §2D1.1 49.0% 44.3% 36.0% USSG §2K2.1 10.7% 7.8% 12.4% 9.2% 19.1% 4.4% 11.4% 11.7% 9.8% 41.8% 43.6% 55.6% 53.3% 51.4% 48.9% 15.3% 10.0% 14.4% 6.7% 10.8% 7.6% 4.1% 2.7% 5.6% 4.8% 4.5% 7.6% 29.6% 24.5% 20.0% 23.8% 21.6% 26.1% 4081 4452 4964 5116 5495 5530 6322 6.3% 9.8% 19.5% 9.2% 15.8% 10.9% 10.7% 58.5% 38.2% 35.6% 53.3% 36.6% 46.5% 43.0% 7.7% 8.9% 6.8% 9.2% 5.5% 8.9% 9.1% 8.5% 8.1% 12.7% 8.3% 4.9% 12.9% 9.1% 19.0% 35.0% 25.4% 20.0% 37.2% 20.8% 28.1% Post-Report Period Judges 4081 4452 4964 5495 5530 6322 12.3% 11.3% 11.0% 13.3% 19.6% 16.2% 40.1% 37.3% 21.3% 37.5% 39.9% 37.1% 11.8% 15.3% 16.2% 11.7% 8.2% 11.9% 5.3% 6.2% 11.8% 10.2% 5.1% 5.7% 30.5% 29.9% 39.7% 27.3% 27.2% 29.0% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4081 4964 5116 5495 5530 6322 Gall Period Judges 86 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2L1.2 4.8% 8.8% 7.0% OTHER 24.3% 27.2% 30.4% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline OKLAHOMA CITY USSG §2B1.1 21.3% 17.9% 16.1% USSG §2D1.1 29.8% 24.3% 27.5% USSG §2K2.1 11.0% 16.5% 12.2% 29.4% 19.6% 21.7% 16.1% 32.7% 26.2% 6.6% 17.6% 19.6% 27.5% 37.5% 25.5% 21.3% 53.9% 13.2% 19.6% 14.5% 12.5% 5.5% 6.6% 6.6% 4063 4523 4621 4814 5334 5597 5770 16.9% 18.2% 15.6% 23.3% 13.1% 17.5% 21.0% 24.3% 39.4% 20.8% 21.8% 21.3% 13.2% 27.4% 19.1% 9.5% 16.7% 17.3% 18.0% 17.5% 19.4% 13.2% 8.8% 19.8% 12.0% 13.1% 12.3% 4.8% 26.5% 24.1% 27.1% 25.6% 34.4% 39.5% 27.4% Post-Report Period Judges 4063 4523 4621 4814 5334 5597 17.0% 8.2% 16.4% 17.5% 16.1% 21.4% 27.4% 24.7% 34.0% 23.5% 28.9% 25.2% 11.3% 14.7% 9.8% 11.0% 10.6% 15.8% 16.1% 16.5% 19.1% 23.0% 17.0% 11.5% 28.3% 35.9% 20.7% 25.0% 27.5% 26.1% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4063 4523 4621 4814 5334 5471 5770 Gall Period Judges USSG §2L1.2 2.8% 12.3% 17.1% . . 5.9% 2.9% 5.4% 3.6% 1.6% . . OTHER 35.1% 29.1% 27.2% 33.8% 41.2% 33.3% 28.6% 32.7% 44.3% 32.9% 87 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline PHILADELPHIA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline PHILADELPHIA USSG §2B1.1 16.1% 15.3% 19.4% USSG §2D1.1 22.8% 22.2% 22.2% USSG §2K2.1 16.3% 16.5% 11.0% USSG §2L1.2 8.1% 10.2% 9.2% OTHER 36.7% 35.8% 38.1% 17.2% 24.0% 5.5% 23.5% 18.9% 17.6% 7.3% 10.0% 9.4% 28.8% 18.8% 14.0% 38.2% 9.8% 20.8% 13.7% 20.0% 40.0% 28.3% 25.0% 20.3% 10.0% 14.5% 23.5% 15.1% 21.6% 14.5% 20.0% 13.2% 9.6% 6.3% 6.0% 12.7% 9.8% 9.4% 2.0% 14.5% . . 9.4% 9.6% 37.5% 46.0% 29.1% 33.3% 35.8% 45.1% 43.6% 30.0% 39.6% 26.9% 4022 4324 4570 4651 4788 4854 4886 5051 5160 5433 5583 5956 6275 6311 6356 6367 20.0% 8.6% 11.9% 22.6% 6.9% 9.0% 16.9% 9.8% 18.9% 16.4% 20.9% 9.7% 16.1% 5.7% 19.4% 28.0% 18.2% 25.9% 20.3% 18.9% 15.5% 23.9% 32.3% 16.4% 13.5% 28.8% 23.9% 17.7% 29.0% 26.4% 19.4% 24.0% 20.0% 15.5% 16.9% 13.2% 24.1% 16.4% 7.7% 16.4% 17.6% 16.4% 17.9% 27.4% 22.6% 17.0% 9.7% 8.0% 10.9% 15.5% 15.3% 11.3% 8.6% 4.5% 4.6% 16.4% 8.1% 11.0% 11.9% 16.1% 4.8% 11.3% 9.7% 5.3% 30.9% 34.5% 35.6% 34.0% 44.8% 46.3% 38.5% 41.0% 41.9% 27.4% 25.4% 29.0% 27.4% 39.6% 41.9% 34.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4022 4324 4570 4623 4641 4651 4788 4854 4886 5042 5051 5287 5433 5583 5956 6275 6356 6367 27.3% 21.2% 30.2% 21.2% 14.6% 14.3% 11.8% 16.0% 5.7% 20.3% 16.1% 18.4% 21.5% 25.3% 17.4% 13.3% 21.7% 28.6% 18.2% 20.0% 19.8% 24.2% 25.6% 19.6% 11.8% 10.7% 13.2% 26.6% 21.4% 22.4% 21.5% 28.0% 27.9% 32.0% 37.3% 14.3% 7.6% 12.9% 7.3% 4.5% 11.0% 14.3% 12.9% 9.3% 11.3% 12.5% 17.9% 14.5% 12.7% 10.7% 9.3% 14.7% 7.2% 10.7% 15.2% 9.4% 10.4% 6.1% 8.5% 19.6% 12.9% 13.3% 11.3% 7.8% 8.9% 2.6% 6.3% 12.0% 7.0% 8.0% 2.4% 7.1% 31.8% 36.5% 32.3% 43.9% 40.2% 32.1% 50.6% 50.7% 58.5% 32.8% 35.7% 42.1% 38.0% 24.0% 38.4% 32.0% 31.3% 39.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4022 4651 4886 5160 5444 5451 5583 6275 6311 6356 Gall Period Judges 88 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline PHOENIX-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline PHOENIX USSG §2D1.1 21.5% 21.2% 27.0% USSG §2K2.1 14.1% 7.8% 9.6% USSG §2L1.2 12.9% 30.1% 23.7% OTHER 47.9% 37.1% 35.2% 3.4% 3.3% 4.5% 7.9% 3.4% 3.7% 3.2% 2.6% 2.4% 0.9% 23.3% 16.3% 15.8% 18.9% 23.9% 20.2% 24.7% 28.8% 15.9% 25.7% 12.5% 14.4% 14.9% 11.6% 12.9% 14.9% 24.1% 12.2% 9.8% 12.8% 13.6% 12.0% 13.4% 10.0% 14.0% 8.5% 14.6% 17.9% 8.5% 14.7% 47.2% 54.1% 51.5% 51.6% 45.8% 52.7% 33.5% 38.5% 63.4% 45.9% 4148 4156 4497 4757 4933 5249 5347 5804 5917 6224 6253 3.7% 4.1% 4.7% 8.7% 3.7% 2.8% 3.9% 2.5% 3.5% 1.3% 3.1% 24.8% 34.2% 17.0% 18.3% 11.4% 20.0% 17.5% 35.4% 22.7% 19.3% 11.5% 6.4% 5.2% 7.5% 8.3% 8.2% 8.8% 10.1% 7.7% 4.6% 8.7% 9.2% 21.1% 26.4% 29.2% 27.0% 38.8% 32.0% 30.7% 27.0% 38.1% 28.0% 26.5% 44.0% 30.1% 41.5% 37.8% 37.9% 36.4% 37.7% 27.4% 31.2% 42.7% 49.6% Post-Report Period Judges 4033 4148 4156 4546 4757 5249 5347 5351 5804 5917 6121 6224 6253 1.6% 3.2% 3.7% 3.6% 4.5% 4.9% 5.3% 4.7% 5.6% 9.2% 4.0% 3.4% 5.7% 37.3% 10.6% 22.9% 27.4% 29.0% 21.1% 24.5% 24.5% 34.1% 29.5% 33.8% 13.7% 21.7% 5.8% 7.4% 10.4% 4.9% 12.1% 12.7% 11.5% 9.4% 8.1% 11.6% 8.6% 7.4% 12.6% 27.0% 64.9% 22.1% 24.7% 22.7% 26.1% 20.7% 26.9% 17.6% 17.9% 20.2% 22.9% 27.0% 28.3% 13.8% 41.0% 39.5% 31.6% 35.2% 38.0% 34.4% 34.5% 31.8% 33.3% 52.6% 33.0% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4148 4497 4757 4933 5249 5347 5804 5917 6224 6253 Gall Period Judges USSG §2B1.1 3.6% 3.8% 4.5% 89 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline PITTSBURGH-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline PITTSBURGH USSG §2B1.1 16.9% 15.2% 15.5% USSG §2D1.1 34.3% 33.8% 40.9% USSG §2K2.1 19.9% 17.1% 9.9% USSG §2L1.2 1.3% 1.8% 1.2% OTHER 27.7% 32.1% 32.5% 16.9% 15.9% 11.8% 12.8% 19.5% 17.2% 23.5% 14.5% 18.8% 35.6% 37.7% 21.6% 50.0% 27.3% 31.0% 39.7% 42.1% 18.8% 16.9% 21.7% 37.3% 14.1% 16.9% 20.7% 22.1% 10.5% 25.0% . . . 30.5% 24.6% 29.4% 21.8% 33.8% 28.7% 11.8% 31.6% 37.5% 4334 4678 4877 5136 5386 5572 5671 5682 5975 6251 14.3% 27.3% 16.9% 16.4% 8.6% 8.1% 26.3% 14.1% 8.2% 13.0% 33.0% 26.1% 27.3% 48.2% 25.9% 34.9% 19.7% 38.5% 46.9% 29.0% 23.1% 19.3% 18.2% 9.1% 21.0% 19.8% 19.7% 10.3% 15.3% 17.4% . Post-Report Period Judges 4334 4877 5085 5136 5386 5477 5671 5682 5975 6251 15.4% 18.2% 14.4% 13.0% 18.6% 14.0% 16.3% 20.3% 11.0% 10.0% 39.2% 43.2% 50.0% 47.4% 31.9% 43.0% 32.6% 33.2% 33.0% 55.0% 9.2% 6.1% 9.3% 11.0% 8.8% 10.3% 14.0% 9.9% 14.7% 8.3% . Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4180 4334 4678 5136 5386 5572 5671 5682 5975 Gall Period Judges 90 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports . . . . . . . 1.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.9% 1.3% 2.3% 8.6% 2.3% 2.6% 2.9% 1.4% 1.9% 4.4% 0.9% 1.2% 1.0% 1.8% . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7% 25.0% 37.7% 26.4% 35.8% 34.9% 34.2% 34.6% 29.6% 37.7% 36.2% 31.1% 26.3% 26.6% 36.3% 31.8% 36.0% 35.6% 39.4% 26.7% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline PORTLAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF OREGON Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline PORTLAND USSG §2B1.1 13.1% 10.1% 7.6% USSG §2D1.1 25.6% 26.6% 26.1% USSG §2K2.1 21.8% 16.9% 21.0% 17.6% 14.7% 11.3% 10.8% 14.0% 29.7% 14.7% 33.8% 26.6% 21.7% 20.3% 19.6% 21.8% 19.4% 27.1% 8.1% 9.8% 4.9% 6.5% 7.0% 24.3% 41.2% 28.2% 36.7% 30.2% 4051 4068 5274 5445 5459 5687 5973 5.4% 14.7% 10.7% 8.7% 2.2% 11.2% 16.0% 18.5% 13.3% 20.7% 34.3% 52.9% 22.9% 18.7% 16.3% 13.3% 19.3% 19.2% 12.5% 16.6% 18.2% 15.2% 20.0% 8.0% 9.3% 17.6% 15.6% 13.4% 44.6% 38.7% 41.3% 28.5% 14.7% 33.7% 33.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4051 4117 4536 4988 5274 5445 5459 5687 5973 6162 8.7% 8.6% 10.5% 6.4% 6.8% 8.2% 2.3% 11.8% 6.9% . . 25.2% 21.4% 24.3% 30.4% 28.8% 31.4% 34.9% 22.4% 27.1% . . 11.5% 26.7% 21.5% 20.1% 25.4% 27.3% 19.8% 19.7% 26.1% 2.6% 18.2% 6.4% 7.2% 4.4% 4.2% 0.3% 24.4% 3.9% . . 83.1% 36.4% 36.9% 36.5% 38.7% 34.7% 32.8% 18.6% 42.1% 39.9% 14.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4068 5274 5445 5687 5973 Gall Period Judges USSG §2L1.2 7.0% 13.6% 10.5% OTHER 32.4% 32.7% 34.8% 91 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAINT LOUIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAINT LOUIS USSG §2B1.1 12.8% 13.6% 19.0% USSG §2D1.1 42.2% 29.3% 24.5% USSG §2K2.1 23.5% 21.8% 27.4% 14.7% 12.1% 14.7% 17.9% 13.7% 12.6% 6.2% 10.2% 44.8% 40.2% 44.1% 34.6% 41.6% 44.4% 45.0% 39.8% 22.8% 21.5% 23.2% 24.1% 25.7% 21.3% 24.4% 25.9% 2.2% 4.7% 3.3% 5.6% 3.1% 2.9% 6.2% 4.6% 15.5% 21.5% 14.7% 17.9% 15.9% 18.8% 18.2% 19.4% 4078 4751 4806 5225 5549 5759 5965 6043 14.4% 11.9% 14.3% 14.5% 13.0% 12.1% 15.8% 11.5% 25.5% 25.2% 34.6% 29.0% 28.2% 34.7% 29.1% 27.9% 23.6% 22.4% 18.0% 20.2% 21.4% 19.1% 23.1% 30.3% 3.0% 1.7% 0.5% 1.5% 0.4% 1.3% 1.6% 6.6% 33.6% 38.8% 32.7% 34.7% 37.0% 32.8% 30.4% 23.8% Post-Report Period Judges 4078 4149 4751 5225 5549 5759 5824 5926 5965 24.1% 13.5% 31.9% 16.0% 16.3% 19.5% 26.2% 17.4% 15.9% 25.8% 30.4% 16.3% 19.8% 22.3% 27.6% 16.1% 27.3% 24.6% 24.9% 27.6% 13.5% 30.2% 19.3% 25.6% 37.6% 34.5% 27.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 1.7% 2.0% 0.3% 1.9% 24.4% 27.0% 37.6% 33.0% 41.0% 25.6% 18.1% 20.5% 30.1% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4078 4751 4806 5225 5549 5759 5965 6043 Gall Period Judges 92 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports USSG §2L1.2 4.0% 1.8% 1.2% OTHER 17.6% 33.6% 27.8% APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline SALT LAKE CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF UTAH Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SALT LAKE CITY USSG §2B1.1 6.6% 7.6% 9.0% USSG §2D1.1 25.9% 28.0% 30.3% USSG §2K2.1 24.7% 25.7% 25.6% USSG §2L1.2 20.2% 7.9% 5.4% OTHER 22.6% 30.8% 29.7% 4.9% 12.9% 9.4% 7.5% 5.9% 4.0% 5.5% 7.3% 29.2% 12.9% 33.6% 19.4% 23.5% 29.6% 24.7% 19.5% 25.1% 22.4% 21.7% 25.4% 23.5% 26.1% 24.0% 27.1% 18.4% 34.1% 16.8% 26.9% 17.6% 21.3% 17.5% 21.4% 22.5% 17.6% 18.4% 20.9% 29.4% 19.0% 28.4% 24.8% 4109 4550 4775 4983 5615 6343 8.0% 7.5% 16.0% 5.5% 6.6% 7.4% 20.5% 28.9% 22.2% 32.4% 24.5% 33.3% 24.0% 27.5% 22.2% 30.5% 24.1% 23.8% 9.1% 7.5% 16.0% 5.9% 8.0% 6.8% 38.4% 28.6% 23.5% 25.8% 36.8% 28.6% Post-Report Period Judges 4109 4550 4775 4870 4983 5615 6074 6130 6343 9.4% 9.9% 17.6% 7.8% 14.3% 7.1% 9.5% 1.4% 6.7% 26.2% 22.1% 24.7% 33.3% 23.6% 23.0% 30.0% 35.6% 47.5% 20.8% 35.1% 29.4% 20.8% 25.7% 29.4% 21.6% 34.2% 20.2% 4.7% 5.3% 4.7% 6.3% 4.3% 5.6% 8.1% 1.4% 4.0% 38.9% 27.5% 23.5% 31.8% 32.1% 34.9% 30.7% 27.4% 21.5% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4109 4242 4550 4775 4781 4983 6165 6343 Gall Period Judges 93 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN ANTONIO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN ANTONIO USSG §2D1.1 38.2% 28.1% 31.9% USSG §2K2.1 19.5% 14.0% 11.0% USSG §2L1.2 12.0% 32.4% 34.3% OTHER 23.3% 19.7% 17.2% 5.0% 9.1% 6.4% 41.2% 35.7% 38.1% 21.1% 18.3% 19.5% 10.1% 13.5% 12.3% 22.6% 23.5% 23.7% 5364 5531 5742 4.0% 5.5% 8.0% 30.1% 23.8% 31.6% 15.7% 12.8% 13.8% 27.0% 40.5% 27.4% 23.2% 17.4% 19.2% Post-Report Period Judges 5364 5405 5531 5742 7.2% 4.7% 3.9% 6.1% 32.9% 26.6% 33.9% 31.0% 11.4% 9.1% 11.3% 11.0% 29.5% 41.1% 35.2% 34.9% 18.9% 18.5% 15.7% 17.0% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 5364 5531 5742 Gall Period Judges 94 | USSG §2B1.1 6.9% 5.8% 5.6% https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN DIEGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN DIEGO Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4062 4491 4572 4810 5404 5455 5474 5539 6373 Gall Period Judges 4062 4491 4559 4572 4810 5059 5474 5539 5709 5714 5751 5901 6222 6373 Post-Report Period Judges 4012 4062 4491 4559 4572 4810 5059 5269 5539 5709 5714 5751 5901 6086 6222 6373 USSG §2B1.1 1.3% 2.3% 4.0% USSG §2D1.1 21.0% 19.3% 36.9% 1.4% 0.4% 2.0% 1.3% 2.2% 3.2% 0.8% 1.4% 1.3% 36.2% 23.1% 22.0% 25.3% 24.2% 17.9% 33.1% 27.1% 3.5% 4.3% 1.8% 1.5% 3.2% 1.2% 1.2% 3.4% 2.1% 4.8% 1.9% 4.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 19.0% 27.4% 12.8% 21.1% 23.3% 19.8% 26.8% 24.0% 17.2% 20.4% 18.7% 19.5% 21.4% . . 6.7% 1.8% 1.8% 7.4% 3.5% 2.8% 2.0% 4.3% 10.3% 9.1% 3.1% 9.1% 2.5% 4.8% 2.6% . . 32.4% 53.2% 54.1% 25.6% 41.0% 42.5% 26.4% 42.9% 32.2% 23.0% 45.2% 36.4% 33.1% 16.2% 36.5% . . USSG §2K2.1 0.4% 2.3% 3.3% . . . . . . 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 3.0% 1.1% 2.9% 3.2% 1.7% 2.9% 6.3% 1.8% 2.4% 0.9% 2.5% 4.2% 2.6% 3.2% 2.4% 4.8% 5.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.5% 1.7% 4.8% 2.0% 4.5% 5.0% 7.6% 2.6% USSG §2L1.2 21.7% 40.8% 23.3% OTHER 55.6% 35.4% 32.4% . 24.2% 21.4% 35.5% 19.7% 30.8% 24.2% 13.9% 25.7% 19.2% 37.7% 55.1% 40.0% 52.8% 41.8% 54.7% 51.5% 44.8% 76.0% . 39.2% 34.7% 45.5% 42.6% 35.1% 37.8% 24.4% 37.2% 36.3% 37.0% 36.0% 39.5% 39.8% 76.7% 34.5% 35.0% 37.3% 29.9% 38.6% 38.2% 39.0% 34.9% 39.3% 39.8% 38.8% 34.9% 34.2% 21.7% 20.0% 9.2% 23.7% 23.7% 18.9% 20.8% 39.6% 18.6% 23.0% 21.2% 23.4% 7.3% 21.1% 17.1% 20.6% 82.3% 37.8% 35.8% 17.9% 38.5% 31.1% 30.6% 29.1% 31.7% 32.8% 41.8% 26.4% 42.7% 38.3% 54.3% 37.6% 17.7% . . . . 95 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN FRANCISCO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN FRANCISCO USSG §2B1.1 6.5% 13.8% 12.7% USSG §2D1.1 26.8% 24.9% 27.2% USSG §2K2.1 17.7% 12.2% 18.2% USSG §2L1.2 10.7% 22.0% 8.7% OTHER 38.3% 27.2% 33.2% 3.3% 6.2% 6.7% 7.8% 13.7% 2.8% 28.3% 24.6% 25.0% 32.5% 15.7% 31.0% 23.3% 21.5% 5.0% 14.3% 21.6% 21.1% 10.0% 16.9% 8.3% 9.1% 7.8% 11.3% 35.0% 30.8% 55.0% 36.4% 41.2% 33.8% 4040 4194 4644 4962 5483 14.3% 11.1% 14.5% 10.9% 18.3% 25.5% 21.2% 19.7% 37.0% 18.3% 14.3% 12.1% 12.0% 13.8% 8.7% 12.2% 25.3% 23.1% 21.7% 27.0% 33.7% 30.3% 30.8% 16.7% 27.8% Post-Report Period Judges 4040 4418 4574 4644 4962 5483 5554 5847 13.8% 13.3% 14.8% 15.3% 12.7% 7.4% 14.9% 10.1% 36.2% 36.1% 27.8% 26.8% 24.5% 27.3% 29.7% 19.3% 12.1% 20.5% 16.5% 19.7% 18.9% 13.2% 25.7% 18.3% 12.1% 3.6% 13.0% 6.4% 6.1% 15.7% 5.4% 9.2% 25.9% 26.5% 27.8% 31.8% 37.7% 36.4% 24.3% 43.1% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4194 4644 4698 4962 5483 5786 Gall Period Judges 96 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN JUAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SAN JUAN USSG §2D1.1 53.2% 27.0% 23.0% USSG §2K2.1 7.6% 6.4% 24.5% USSG §2L1.2 11.8% 3.3% 2.3% OTHER 23.3% 59.7% 47.6% 1.4% 1.4% 2.2% 9.5% 2.3% 2.6% 6.3% 64.2% 65.8% 47.8% 53.2% 45.7% 52.3% 42.2% 4.7% 2.7% 9.7% 9.5% 9.3% 5.2% 10.9% 13.5% 9.6% 17.2% 7.3% 15.5% 7.7% 17.2% 16.2% 20.5% 23.1% 20.5% 27.1% 32.3% 23.4% 4017 4203 4262 4656 5229 5341 6078 6144 2.9% 2.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.3% 6.0% 5.9% 6.3% 33.6% 33.8% 29.2% 27.1% 24.7% 25.6% 17.0% 32.8% 0.7% 7.4% 5.3% 12.5% 8.8% 10.1% 3.0% 5.3% 1.5% 9.6% 1.1% 5.6% 3.3% 3.6% 3.0% 2.1% 61.3% 47.1% 63.6% 53.5% 60.9% 54.8% 71.2% 53.4% Post-Report Period Judges 4017 4203 4262 4656 4778 5229 5341 6078 6144 4.2% 2.5% 2.3% 1.3% 2.4% 2.6% 3.3% 2.7% 3.2% 32.9% 19.9% 26.1% 24.6% 10.4% 19.2% 24.9% 20.9% 24.3% 19.2% 24.5% 19.5% 25.5% 43.2% 23.0% 29.1% 21.1% 26.7% 2.8% 2.1% 1.9% 2.2% 3.2% 1.5% 1.8% 3.0% 3.0% 40.8% 51.0% 50.3% 46.4% 40.8% 53.8% 40.8% 52.2% 42.8% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4017 4136 4203 4262 4656 5229 6078 Gall Period Judges USSG §2B1.1 4.1% 3.5% 2.6% 97 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Judge's Caseload by Guideline SEATTLE-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline SEATTLE USSG §2B1.1 13.5% 13.5% 13.3% USSG §2D1.1 41.2% 39.7% 39.0% USSG §2K2.1 9.0% 10.8% 15.8% USSG §2L1.2 11.9% 14.3% 6.6% OTHER 24.3% 21.8% 25.3% 13.3% 13.5% 9.9% 12.1% 19.2% 12.3% 13.7% 39.0% 33.3% 38.9% 39.6% 40.4% 43.9% 51.6% 5.7% 6.3% 17.3% 6.6% 8.8% 10.7% 5.9% 17.1% 20.6% 7.4% 6.0% 12.4% 8.0% 17.0% 24.8% 26.2% 26.5% 35.7% 19.2% 25.1% 11.8% 4150 4185 5011 5515 5891 6150 6193 15.5% 18.0% 10.5% 15.0% 13.1% 12.0% 13.9% 29.6% 36.1% 42.4% 38.9% 40.4% 44.8% 40.6% 7.7% 26.2% 9.3% 7.8% 11.6% 10.9% 10.9% 16.9% 1.6% 12.8% 19.8% 14.1% 12.0% 15.3% 30.3% 18.0% 25.0% 18.6% 20.7% 20.3% 19.3% Post-Report Period Judges 4150 4185 5011 5515 5891 6150 6193 11.8% 20.4% 15.3% 11.5% 11.2% 9.5% 19.9% 37.7% 23.9% 34.4% 42.7% 50.8% 43.6% 29.5% 12.7% 25.7% 17.7% 13.8% 15.2% 15.3% 15.7% 5.7% 8.8% 7.9% 5.5% 4.1% 6.2% 9.6% 32.0% 21.2% 24.7% 26.5% 18.8% 25.5% 25.3% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4185 5011 5018 5515 5891 6150 6193 Gall Period Judges 98 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX C: Caseload Compositions Judge's Caseload by Guideline TAMPA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Appendix B: Judge's Caseload by Guideline TAMPA USSG §2B1.1 7.6% 10.7% 14.5% USSG §2D1.1 60.1% 47.9% 49.8% USSG §2K2.1 7.2% 9.4% 11.5% USSG §2L1.2 10.2% 12.9% 7.8% OTHER 14.9% 19.0% 16.4% 5.9% 14.1% 4.1% 11.0% 8.1% 2.9% 7.1% 60.6% 51.3% 68.5% 61.0% 59.3% 63.4% 55.5% 8.0% 7.0% 4.1% 3.8% 3.7% 11.4% 12.6% 10.6% 9.5% 9.5% 10.4% 12.6% 10.9% 8.8% 14.9% 18.1% 14.0% 13.7% 16.3% 11.4% 15.9% 4303 4720 5025 5171 5236 5439 5798 6115 6334 9.5% 17.6% 9.3% 21.2% 8.2% 12.4% 19.2% 6.7% 6.7% 44.1% 42.0% 48.5% 31.8% 46.2% 55.9% 21.9% 56.0% 57.1% 14.7% 10.8% 8.9% 1.5% 11.1% 6.2% 13.7% 8.1% 7.1% 12.3% 14.2% 11.8% 33.3% 13.9% 9.6% 11.0% 10.0% 12.4% 19.4% 15.3% 21.5% 12.1% 20.7% 15.8% 34.2% 19.1% 16.7% Post-Report Period Judges 4303 4720 5025 5171 5236 5311 5439 5798 6115 6334 11.0% 18.6% 14.2% 17.0% 11.6% 1.5% 19.2% 15.0% 14.6% 11.8% 54.5% 52.3% 60.1% 43.9% 49.2% 14.9% 48.2% 43.0% 46.6% 56.1% 11.0% 9.8% 7.9% 12.5% 17.4% 3.0% 12.0% 10.6% 13.0% 11.8% 8.9% 6.4% 4.7% 4.8% 6.6% 73.1% 2.9% 7.2% 9.7% 4.5% 14.7% 12.9% 13.0% 21.8% 15.1% 7.5% 17.8% 24.2% 16.2% 15.9% Booker Period Total Gall Period Total Post-Report Period Total Booker Period Judges 4303 4720 5025 5236 5439 6115 6334 Gall Period Judges 99 There were certain cities where judges in the city did not have similar caseload compositions or where a city’s caseload composition changed significantly from one period to the next. 100 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX D: Weighting Analyses APPENDIX D Weighting Analyses As discussed earlier, the Commission chose In order to test the sensitivity of differences to measure differences in judges’ sentencing practices in caseload composition on judges’ average percent by comparing their average percent differences differences—both among a city’s judges during a from the guideline minimums in their cases rather given time period and also across time (in terms of a than comparing their average sentence lengths. As city’s overall caseload)—the Commission conducted explained, the extent of differences among judges weighting analyses.58 regarding sentence length is much more sensitive to variations in caseload composition than the extent of differences in average percent difference. Appendix C shows that, for a majority of the 30 cities, most judges’ caseload compositions in each city were generally similar compared to the other judges in their same city. Appendix C also shows that most cities had generally similar overall caseload compositions across the periods. There were certain cities, however, where most judges in the city did not have similar caseload compositions (e.g., Chicago), or where a city’s caseload composition changed significantly from one period to the next (e.g., Houston, from the Booker to Gall Periods). Differences in Caseload Among a City’s Judges in a Given Time Period The first weighting test assigned all judges in a city in a given time period the same weighted caseload composition by using the city’s overall caseload composition for each judge. The analysis then applied each judge’s actual average percent differences for each of the four primary guidelines (§§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 2K2.1 and 2L1.2) and for all other guidelines (combined into a fifth category) to the judges’ weighted caseloads. Each judge’s overall average percent difference based on his 101 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Figure 11. Weighted Analysis for All 30 Cities Combined Booker Period Gall Period Post-Report Period Actual Spread 18.2 23.7 27.6 Weighted Spread 18.0 23.1 27.7 Actual Standard Deviation 5.8 7.7 8.3 Weighted Standard Deviation 5.8 7.5 8.4 or her weighted caseload composition was substituted This weighting analysis demonstrates that any for that judge’s overall average percent difference differences in caseload composition among judges in based on his or her actual caseload composition. Total the 30 cities during all three periods had very little effect spreads and standard deviations based on the judges’ on the two key measures of differences in sentencing weighted average percent differences for each city in practices. each period were calculated and then compared to the the actual total spreads and standard deviations for each of the three time periods. An example of this weighting analysis is seen in the actual and weighted total spreads and standard deviations for Chicago during the Post-Report Period. Chicago was a city with judges whose caseload compositions during that period were not generally equivalent, as shown in Appendix C (p. 71). The Commission’s weighting analysis showed that those differences did not substantially contribute to the total spread and standard deviation in Chicago in that period. The actual total spread and standard deviation were 49.5 and 10.6, while the weighted total spread and standard deviation were 47.4 and 10.6. The Commission conducted this same weighting analysis for all 30 cities in all three periods. As shown in Figure 11 above, the actual and the weighted average total spreads for those 30 cities and the actual and weighted average standard deviations for the 27 cities with at least five judges in each period (the minimum number of judges required for a standard deviation analysis) were very similar. 102 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports Differences in Caseload Over Time Periods in a City The Commission used a similar weighting analysis to determine whether changes in the total spread and standard deviation were significantly affected by changes in caseload composition across the three periods in some of the 30 cities. This evident weighting test carried forward each judge’s respective caseload composition from a prior period to the subsequent period in a particular city (e.g., each judge’s caseload composition in the Booker Period was carried forward to the Gall Period). Each judge’s actual average percent differences for the four primary guidelines (§§2B1.1, 2D1.1, 2K2.1 and 2L1.2) and for all other guidelines (combined into a fifth category) from the subsequent period were then applied to that judge’s caseload composition imported from the prior period. The judges’ overall average percent differences for their weighted caseloads were calculated, and the city’s weighted total spread and weighted standard deviation for the subsequent period APPENDIX D: Weighting Analyses Figure 12. Booker to Gall Period Comparison for All 30 Cities Combined Booker Period (Actual) Gall Period (Actual) Gall Period (Weighted) Total Spread 17.9 21.7 22.0 Standard Deviation 6.2 7.6 7.8 were then determined using the weighted average The Commission conducted this weighting percent differences for each judge.59 analysis for all 30 cities for both period changes An example of this weighting analysis is seen (Booker to Gall, and Gall to Post-Report). As shown in in the actual and weighted total spreads and standard Figure 12 above, when comparing the changes from deviations for Houston in the Booker Period and the the Booker Period to the Gall Period, the average actual Gall Period. As shown in Appendix C (p. 78), among total spread for all 30 cities in the subsequent period the 30 cities, Houston had one of the most notable was very similar to the average weighted total spread changes in caseload composition from the Booker for all 30 cities in the subsequent period. Similarly, Period to the Gall Period. This change was the result the average actual standard deviation for the 27 cities of a prosecutorial charging policy that substantially with at least five judges in each period (for which the increased the percentage of illegal reentry prosecutions, standard deviations are reported) was very similar to which on average have one of the highest within- the average weighted standard deviation. range rates of all major guideline types.60 Despite the substantial changes in caseload composition from one next period change—from the Gall Period to the Post- period to the next,61 the actual and weighted total Report Period—the average actual and weighted total spreads and standard deviations in the Gall Period both spreads and standard deviations also were very similar. showed noticeable increases from the Booker Period. Therefore, any differences in caseload composition The total spread and standard deviation in the Booker from one period to the next in the 30 cities had very Period were 23.3 and 7.9. The actual total spread and little effect on the two measures of differences in standard deviation in the Gall Period were 36.5 and sentencing practices. As shown in Figure 13 below, regarding the 13.2, compared to weighted total spreads of 28.4 and 10.5. Figure 13. Gall to Post-Report Period Comparison for All 30 Cities Combined Gall Period (Actual) Post-Report Period (Actual) Post-Report Period (Weighted) Total Spread 20.9 25.3 25.8 Standard Deviation 7.1 8.5 8.6 103 Two important concepts in statistics— outliers and standard deviation—are relevant to the Commission’s 30-city study. 104 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation APPENDIX E Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation Analysis This appendix discusses two important Using that test, the Commission identified 39 concepts in statistics—outliers and standard deviation— statistical outliers out of a total 909 different judicial that are relevant to the Commission’s 30-city study. sentencing practices in the 30 cities over the three periods.65 During the Booker Period, there were 11 Statistical Outliers outliers; during the Gall Period, there were ten outliers; and during the Post-Report period, there were 18 When data is analyzed, a researcher should outliers.66 Tampa was the only city to have more than identify whether any point in the dataset is a statistical one outlier judge during multiple periods (Gall and Post- outlier—an “[o]bservation [in the dataset] that is far Report). removed from the bulk of the data.” 62 Outliers “may In order to show the effect of those outlier indicate faulty measurements and they may exert undue judges on both the total spread and standard deviation influence on summary statistics, such as the mean ….” measures, the Commission has re-calculated those 63 Although the Commission has no concerns that any two measures excluding the outlier judges. datapoints in the 30-city dataset are products of faulty results—both with and without the outlier judges in the measurements of any judge’s sentencing practices, the analysis—are set forth below, using a modification of the Commission nonetheless has identified judges who graphical presentation discussed earlier in this report. qualify as outliers using the most common test for The total spread and standard deviation after excluding such identification—the 1.5 x Interquartile Range (IQR) the outliers are reported in parentheses following the test.64 total spread and standard deviation before excluding The 105 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Figure 14. Chicago-Based Outlier Federal Judges CHI the outliers. Outlier judges appear above or below a Booker BOOKER PERIOD red line on the graph. For instance, for Chicago the two outlier judges—one in the Booker Period and one in the Post-Report Period—are identified either above or below red lines superimposed on the graphs to the right. Judges: 18 (17) Cases: 1,341 (1,270) Spread: 31.6 (22.0) Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3) Graphical representations of the cities with at least one outlier judge in at least one period are set forth below. Note that, when removal of an outlier judge resulted in a city having less than five judges -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 in one or more of the three periods, the standard CHI deviation for that city is not reported. As discussed Gall City Avg 0.0 -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD below, reporting the standard deviation for cities with less than five judges in any period is not a meaningful measure of dispersion. Only the total spread will be reported for those cities with less than five judges in a period after excluding outliers. Judges: 22 Cases: 2,033 Spread: 42.7 Standard Deviation: 11.0 The Commission has identified the statistical outliers in order to allow the reader to compare the graphical presentations of sentencing differences among judges for each city that has outlier judges— with and without the outlier judges. Nevertheless, it -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -28.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 must be remembered that outlier judges imposed real CHI Post sentences on real defendants and their sentencing POST-REPORT PERIOD practices contributed to the extent of differences in sentencing practices among judges in their cities. The Commission’s exclusion of outlier judges from the alternative analyses in this appendix is not intended to suggest otherwise. Judges: 24 (23) Cases: 2,951 (2,779) Spread: 49.5 (32.9) Standard Deviation: 10.6 (8.2) -40.0 106 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation Standard Deviation In addition to reporting the total spread—i.e., The standard deviation for each time period the absolute percentage difference between the in each city with at least five judges69 was calculated two judges furthest away the city average, positively as follows. First, the variance—the statistical term, not and negatively—the Commission also has reported the term referring to sentences outside of the guideline the standard deviation for the 27 cities with at least range after Booker—was calculated by summing the five judges in all three periods. Standard deviation squared deviation from the mean for each judge (i.e., is the primary measure of dispersion or variability of the squared difference between each judge’s average datapoints compared to the mean67—in the case of the percent difference and the city’s average percent 30 cities dataset, the dispersion of the judges’ average difference). The total sum was divided by the number percent differences from the guideline minimums in of judges in the city minus one, which yielded the relation to the city’s average percent difference. The statistical variance. The standard deviation was then standard deviation is thus a valid measure of the extent calculated by taking the square root of that variance.70 of sentencing differences among all the judges in a city in a given time period. The standard deviation “can be appropriately understood as the typical distance of a randomly selected [datapoint] from the mean of the distribution.”68 107 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 ATL Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 12 Cases: 995 Spread: 19.6 Standard Deviation: 5.5 OUTLIERS ATLANTA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -1.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -8.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. ATL Gall In Atlanta, there were two statistical outliers over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding GALL PERIOD Judges: 14 (12) Cases: 1,504 (1,382) Spread: 31.8 (12.2) Standard Deviation: 7.2 (3.7) the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% ATL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% Judges: 15 Cases: 2,143 Spread: 26.9 Standard Deviation: 9.6 -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 108 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation CHI Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 18 (17) Cases: 1,341 (1,270) Spread: 31.6 (22.0) Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3) OUTLIERS CHICAGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -28.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. CHI Gallthe In Chicago, there were two statistical outliers over GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 22 Cases: 2,033 Spread: 42.7 Standard Deviation: 11.0 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. Legend -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% CHI Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% Judges: 24 (23) Cases: 2,951 (2,779) Spread: 49.5 (32.9) Standard Deviation: 10.6 (8.2) -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 109 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 CLEV Booker BOOKER PERIOD OUTLIERS Judges: 9 (8) Cases: 924 (840) Spread: 22.7 (12.6) Standard Deviation: 6.6 (4.7) CLEVELAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -6.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -12.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. CLEV Gall In Cleveland, there was one statistical outlier over the GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 8 Cases: 744 Spread: 16.6 Standard Deviation: 5.2 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% CLEV Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 6 Cases: 1,240 Spread: 19.9 Standard Deviation: 7.5 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 110 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation COL Booker OUTLIERS BOOKER PERIOD COLUMBUS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES Judges: 5 (4) Cases: 282 (222) Spread: 15.2 (6.0) Standard Deviation: 6.0 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that measure excluding outlier judges. Because Columbus has less than five judges in atCOL least Gall one period after excluding outliers, the Commission has not reported the standard deviation after excluding outliers for this city. In Columbus, there was one statistical outlier over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg 10.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -19.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -24.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 463 Spread: 12.4 Standard Deviation: 5.0 red line on the graphs. The total spread after excluding the outliers is reported in parentheses following the total spread before excluding the outliers. -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% COL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% Judges: 7 Cases: 927 Spread: 8.7 Standard Deviation: 3.1 -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 111 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 DAL Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 8 (7) Cases: 660 (566) Spread: 22.0 (10.1) Standard Deviation: 6.6 (4.0) OUTLIERS DALLAS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 1.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. DAL Gall In Dallas, there were three statistical outliers over the GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 7 (6) Cases: 904 (773) Spread: 33.0 (15.2) Standard Deviation: 10.9 (6.0) total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend -30.0 35 to 39.99% -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -3.0% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% DAL Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 7 (6) Cases: 2,507 (2,146) Spread: 40.3 (19.0) Standard Deviation: 12.5 (7.1) -35 to -39.99% -40.0 112 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -2.1% APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation DET Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 11 Cases: 680 Spread: 34.4 Standard Deviation: 9.5 OUTLIERS DETROIT-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -21.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. DET Gall In Detroit, there were three statistical outliers over the GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 12 Cases: 1,011 Spread: 34.1 Standard Deviation: 10.6 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend -30.0 35 to 39.99% -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% DET Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 18 (15) Cases: 2,210 (1,727) Spread: 47.7 (21.2) Standard Deviation: 11.1 (6.2) -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -23.3% 113 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 LA Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 15 (13) Cases: 1,273 (1,090) Spread: 29.1 (17.6) Standard Deviation: 7.6 (5.1) OUTLIERS LOS ANGELES-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -18.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -26.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. LA Gall In Los Angeles, there were two statistical outliers over the three periods. GALL PERIOD Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 18 Cases: 2,407 Spread: 29.3 Standard Deviation: 8.0 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% LA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% Judges: 20 Cases: 3,111 Spread: 42.9 Standard Deviation: 11.8 -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 114 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation MAN Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 32 (31) Cases: 2,899 (2,845) Spread: 44.8 (36.1) Standard Deviation: 9.2 (7.9) OUTLIERS MANHATTAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -25.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -36.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. MAN Gall In Manhattan, there was one statistical outlier over the GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 31 Cases: 3,435 Spread: 34.5 Standard Deviation: 8.7 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% MAN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% Judges: 38 Cases: 4,863 Spread: 59.1 Standard Deviation: 12.9 -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 115 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 MEM Booker OUTLIERS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 3 Cases: 534 Spread: 14.0 MEMPHIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that measure excluding outlier judges. Because Memphis has less than five judges in at least MEM Gall one period after excluding outliers, the Commission -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -5.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -6.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -13.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD has not reported the standard deviation after excluding outliers for this city. In Memphis, there was one statistical outlier over the Judges: 4 Cases: 980 Spread: 17.4 three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread after excluding the outliers is reported in parentheses following the total spread before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend -30.0 35 to 39.99% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -20.0 MEM Post 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% POST-REPORT PERIOD -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% Judges: 5 (4) Cases: 1,400 (1,162) Spread: 18.6 (6.8) -40.0 116 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation MIA Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 13 (12) Cases: 2,074 (1,983) Spread: 16.0 (7.8) Standard Deviation: 4.1 (2.6) OUTLIERS MIAMI-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -6.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -10.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. MIA Gall In Miami, there was one statistical outlier over the three GALL PERIOD periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 12 Cases: 2,859 Spread: 17.1 Standard Deviation: 5.2 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% -30.0 MIA Post 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% POST-REPORT PERIOD -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% Judges: 15 Cases: 4,534 Spread: 29.9 Standard Deviation: 9.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 117 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 MINN Booker OUTLIERS MINNEAPOLIS-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 6 Cases: 606 Spread: 13.7 Standard Deviation: 5.1 DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on the total spread, the Commission re-calculated that measure excluding outlier judges. In Minneapolis, there was one statistical outlier over MINNthe Gall three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -7.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -15.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -18.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 GALL PERIOD red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding Judges: 7 Cases: 908 Spread: 20.5 Standard Deviation: 6.9 the outliers. -40.0 Legend -30.0 35 to 39.99% -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% MINN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% Judges: 6 (5) Cases: 996 (786) Spread: 15.0 (6.6) Standard Deviation: 5.3 (3.2) -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 118 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation OKC Booker OUTLIERS OKLAHOMA CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 (6) Cases: 436 (360) Spread: 32.1 (14.8) Standard Deviation: 10.2 (5.8) WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -0.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -7.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -19.3% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. OKC Gall In Oklahoma City, there was one statistical outlier over the three periods. GALL PERIOD Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 7 Cases: 800 Spread: 14.8 Standard Deviation: 5.2 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% OKC Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% Judges: 6 Cases: 1,369 Spread: 6.9 Standard Deviation: 2.7 -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 119 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 PHI Booker BOOKER PERIOD OUTLIERS PHILADELPHIA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES Judges: 10 (9) Cases: 534 (479) Spread: 33.8 (15.8) Standard Deviation: 9.6 (5.2) EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -11.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. PHI Gall In Philadelphia, there were three statistical outliers GALL PERIOD over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 16 (15) Cases: 1,004 (937) Spread: 53.7 (28.3) Standard Deviation: 13.5 (9.6) total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. Legend -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -14.6% Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% PHI Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% Judges: 18 (17) Cases: 1,314 (1,239) Spread: 63.8 (33.8) Standard Deviation: 13.6 (9.6) -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% -40.0 120 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City0.0 Avg 18.4% APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation PHX Booker BOOKER PERIOD OUTLIERS Judges: 10 (9) Cases: 1,843 (1,579) Spread: 8.7 (5.8) Standard Deviation: 2.8 (1.9) PHOENIX-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF ARIZONA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -3.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -7.4% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -10.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. PHX Gall In Phoenix, there were four statistical outliers over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. Legend GALL PERIOD Judges: 11 (9) Cases: 2,330 (1,974) Spread: 25.7 (16.7) Standard Deviation: 7.1 (4.5) -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% PHX Post POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% Judges: 13 (12) Cases: 3,742 (3,600) Spread: 27.5 (21.9) Standard Deviation: 7.9 (6.3) -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 121 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 PITT Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 629 Spread: 19.7 Standard Deviation: 5.9 OUTLIERS PITTSBURGH-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -1.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -13.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -16.9% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. PITT Gall In Pittsburgh, there was one statistical outlier over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a GALL PERIOD red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding Judges: 10 (9) Cases: 854 (768) Spread: 32.5 (12.2) Standard Deviation: 9.4 (4.0) the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% PITT Post 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 10 Cases: 1,287 Spread: 19.8 Standard Deviation: 6.9 -35 to -39.99% -40.0 122 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation PORT Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 5 Cases: 586 Spread: 8.3 Standard Deviation: 3.3 OUTLIERS PORTLAND-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF OREGON In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -11.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -21.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City0.0 Avg -29.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. PORT Gall In Portland, there was one statistical outlier over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a GALL PERIOD red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding Judges: 7 Cases: 1,017 Spread: 14.7 Standard Deviation: 5.8 the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% PORT Post POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 10 (9) Cases: 1,711 (1,625) Spread: 24.6 (13.0) Standard Deviation: 7.1 (4.8) -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 123 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 SLC Booker OUTLIERS SALT LAKE CITY-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 1,504 Spread: 7.8 Standard Deviation: 3.0 DISTRICT OF UTAH In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -6.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City 0.0Avg -15.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -29.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. SLC Gall In Salt Lake City, there were three statistical outliers GALL PERIOD over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 6 Cases: 1,428 Spread: 14.7 Standard Deviation: 5.6 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. -40.0 Legend 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% SLC Post POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% Judges: 9 (6) Cases: 1,733 (1,044) Spread: 20.1 (1.9) Standard Deviation: 5.8 (0.7) -40.0 124 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation SD Booker OUTLIERS BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 9 Cases: 2,295 Spread: 13.9 Standard Deviation: 4.5 SAN DIEGO-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -6.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.5% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. SD Gall In San Diego, there was one statistical outlier over the GALL PERIOD three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the Judges: 14 Cases: 5,288 Spread: 21.3 Standard Deviation: 6.4 total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. Legend -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% SD Post POST-REPORT PERIOD 0 to 4.99% -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 16 (15) Cases: 4,377 (4,315) Spread: 54.4 (38.3) Standard Deviation: 13.0 (9.7) -35 to -39.99% -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 -23.8% 125 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 SAN JUAN Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 923 Spread: 9.6 Standard Deviation: 3.6 OUTLIERS SAN JUAN-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City Avg 0.0 0.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.8% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -1.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. In San Juan, there was one statistical outlier SAN JUAN overGallthe three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding the outliers. Legend GALL PERIOD Judges: 8 Cases: 1,524 Spread: 20.9 Standard Deviation: 7.2 -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% SAN JUAN Post POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% Judges: 9 (8) Cases: 4,013 (3,486) Spread: 22.2 (19.9) Standard Deviation: 7.4 (6.3) -35 to -39.99% -40.0 126 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 APPENDIX E: Statistical Outliers and Standard Deviation TAMPA Booker BOOKER PERIOD Judges: 7 Cases: 1,283 Spread: 11.9 Standard Deviation: 3.7 OUTLIERS TAMPA-BASED FEDERAL JUDGES MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In order to show the effect of statistical outliers on both the total spread and standard deviation measures, the Commission re-calculated those measures excluding -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 City 0.0Avg -0.2% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -4.7% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 City Avg 0.0 -9.6% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 outlier judges. TAMPA Gall In Tampa, there were six statistical outliers over the three periods. Outlier judges appear above or below a red line on the graphs. The total spread and standard deviation after excluding the outliers are reported in parentheses following the total spread and standard deviation before excluding GALL PERIOD Judges: 9 (6) Cases: 1,567 (1,218) Spread: 29.7 (6.7) Standard Deviation: 9.6 (2.3) the outliers. Legend -40.0 35 to 39.99% -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 Legend 30 to 34.99% 25 to 29.99% 20 to 24.99% 15 to 19.99% 10 to 14.99% 5 to 9.99% 0 to 4.99% TAMPA Post POST-REPORT PERIOD -0.01 to -4.99% -5 to -9.99% -10 to -14.99% -15 to -19.99% -20 to -24.99% -25 to -29.99% -30 to -34.99% -35 to -39.99% Judges: 10 (7) Cases: 2,429 (1,866) Spread: 22.7 (3.1) Standard Deviation: 5.9 (1.1) -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 127 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 Endnotes 1 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing (“2012 Booker Report”). 3 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report (November 2017). 4 Id. at 2 (analysis of data from fiscal years 2012 to 2016 found that Black males received a 19.1% higher sentence on average than White males). 5 See USSG §1B1.1, commen. (backg’d) (“Subsections (a), (b), and (c) [of §1B1.1] are structured to reflect the three-step process used in determining the particular sentence to be imposed. If, after step (c), the court imposes a sentence that is outside the guidelines framework, such a sentence is considered a ‘variance.’); see also United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 801 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1294 (2013) (“A ‘departure’ is typically a change from the final sentencing range computed by examining the provisions of the Guidelines themselves. . . . A ‘variance,’ by contrast, occurs when a judge imposes a sentence above or below the otherwise properly calculated final sentencing range based on application of the other statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”). 2012 Booker Report, at 98. 6 7 See Booker, 543 U.S. at 248, 259 (“[W]e conclude that the constitutional jury trial requirement is not compatible with the Act as written and that some severance and excision are necessary. . . . The remainder of the Act function[s] independently.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 366 (1989); see also William W. Wilkins, Phyllis J. Newton, and John R. Steer, The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: A Bold Approach to the Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity Problem, 2 Crim. L. Forum 355 (1991). Senator Kennedy, the leading sponsor of the SRA, referred to Congress’s concern over sentencing disparities as being “the major impetus for sentencing reform.” Edward M. Kennedy, Toward a New System of Criminal Sentencing: Law with Order, 16 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 353, 357 (1979). Report of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong. (1st Sess.), at 41-42 9 (Sept. 14, 1983) (discussing sentencing disparities studies considered by Congress in enacting the SRA); see also Marvin E. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order 6-7 (1973) (criticizing the “wild array of sentencing judgments [in federal court] without any semblance of the consistency demanded by our ideal of equal justice” and observing that the type and length of federal sentences for similar situated offenders “depend[ed] on the judge” drawn by the defendants). 10 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(6); 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f). 11 28 U.S.C. §§ 991(b)(1)(B), 994(f). 12 Booker, 543 U.S. at 263; see also id. at 264 (“The system remaining . . ., while lacking the mandatory features that Congress enacted, retains other features that help to further these objectives [including avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities].”). 13 See 2012 Booker Report, at 98-104. 14 518 U.S. 996 (1996). 15 542 U.S. 296 (June 24, 2004). 16 543 U.S. 200 (June 10, 2005). 17 2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 28 (December 10, 2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (December 10, 18 2012 Booker Report, at 98. 19 Id. at 104. 128 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports ENDNOTES 20 Id. at 100. The extent of reduction varied broadly during each period and did not appear to have been affected by legislation or Supreme Court decisions. Id. 21 Id. at 98. 22 Id. 23 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2017 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-53 (2018) (non-government sponsored below range cases constituted 20.1% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2017); 2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics 50 (2011) (non-government sponsored below range cases constituted 17.8% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2010); 2006 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics 52 (2007)(non-government sponsored below range cases constituted 12.0% of caseload in Fiscal Year 2006). 24 The “post-report period” discussed in the Commission’s 2017 report on demographic differences spanned fiscal years 2012 through 2016. See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report 6 (2017). The updated data analyses described in this report do not include the Koon and PROTECT Act periods that were part of the 2012 and 2017 data analyses. 25 Even if a judge had at least 50 cases in a given period, he or she may not have been included in the analysis of one or both of the other periods studied depending the size of the judge’s caseloads in those periods. 26 Random assignment is the general rule in the federal system. See, e.g., S.D.N.Y., Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges (2017), Rule 6, http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/rules.pdf (“In a criminal case, after an indictment has been returned by the Grand Jury or a notice has been filed by the United States Attorney’s Office of an intention to file an information upon the defendant’s waiver of indictment, the magistrate judge on duty will randomly draw from the criminal wheel, in open court, the name of a judge to whom the case should be assigned for all purposes.”); N.D. Ill. Local Rules (2017), Rule 1 (stating that, as a general matter, “the assignment of cases shall be by lot”), https:// www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PrintContent.aspx?rid=44; see generally Report of the Proceeding of the Judicial Conference of the United States 13 (2000) (noting that “all [federal] courts . . . employ random case assignment procedures”). Depending in the district, there are certain exceptions to this general rule, such as a single judge’s being assigned several “related” cases (e.g., a large-scale drug-trafficking or fraud prosecution of multiple defendants, using separate indictments) or senior judges’ being permitted to opt out of certain types of criminal cases. See, e.g., D. Minn., Order for Assignment of Cases, http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/cmecf/Order-for-Assignment-of-Cases.pdf (2017). 27 See, e.g., Crystal S. Yang, Have Interjudge Sentencing Disparities Increased in an Advisory Guidelines Reime? Evidence From Booker, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1268, 1297 (2014); Ryan W. Scott, Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 24 (2010). 28 Visiting district judges (with one exception, noted below), circuit judges sitting by designation as district judges, and all magistrate judges were excluded from the analyses. Senior district judges who opted to hear criminal cases were included in the analyses, assuming they met the minimum 50-case requirement discussed above. A single visiting judge was included in the analysis because he served as a full-time visiting judge in a city for several years and met the 50-case minimum for one period. 29 See National Geographic Society, United States Regions, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/unitedstates-regions/. 30 Only the D.C. Circuit was not represented in the analysis. The sole district in the D.C. Circuit is the District for the District of Columbia, whose criminal caseload was too small to allow an analysis of its judges (based on the Commission’s minimum 50-case per judge requirement). 31 Some of the larger cities by population were excluded in order to assure better geographic representation by other cities—e.g., larger cities like Fort Worth and San Jose were excluded because other cities in the same immediate geographic area had more judges and larger caseloads (i.e., Dallas and San Francisco), while less populous cities like Saint Louis and Denver were included to assure representation from all regions in the country. The cities were selected for inclusion in the Commission’s study before the results of the analyses of their judges’ sentencing practices were conducted. 32 Although Alexandria is not itself a major city, the federal district courthouse in Alexandria serves the entire metropolitan area of Northern Virginia, which is a densely populated area. See About Northern Virginia, http://www. novachamber.org/about-northern-virginia.html (noting that the counties of Northern Virginia, near Washington D.C., together have a population of over 2 million people). 129 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 33 Rather than looking at all federal judges in greater New York City, the analysis is limited to federal judges in Manhattan. Consideration of all federal judges in the larger city would require two different federal districts—the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York—to be considered together. 34 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-53 (2017) (Table N) (49.1% of all cases had within range sentences, and 2.9% of cases had above range sentences). 35 See USSG §§5G1.1(b) (“Where the statutorily authorized minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”) & 5G1.1(c)(2) (“[T] he sentence may be imposed at any point within the applicable guideline range, provided that the sentence . . . is not less than any statutorily required minimum sentence.”). For example, if a defendant’s guideline range before application of a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 78-97 months—resulting in a guideline range of 120-120 months under USSG § 5G1.1(b)—that case was excluded because the court had no sentencing discretion to impose a sentence less than 120 months. The Commission also excluded all cases with sentences imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) even if those cases did not involve a mandatory minimum trump. Section 924(e) requires a 180-month mandatory minimum sentence, which is above the otherwise applicable guideline minimums for many armed career criminals and only 8 months below the guideline minimums for the most serious offenders sentenced under §4B1.4 (after full credit for acceptance of responsibility under USSC § 3E1.1). See USSG §4B1.4 (Armed Career Criminal) & Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table) (guideline range, after a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, for defendants with highest offense level and highest Criminal History Category, i.e., offense level 31 and CHC VI, is 188-235 months). For these reasons, judges’ discretion to sentence below the statutory minimum is so circumscribed that the Commission has excluded all section 924(e) cases from the current study’s analysis. 36 See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); USSG §5K1.1 & 5K.3.1; see also U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff Working Group, Federal Sentencing Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendants’ Substantial Assistance to the Government, 11 Fed. Sent’g Rptr. 18, 23, (1998) (noting that substantial assistance motions “were almost always granted” once filed by the prosecution); L. Felipe Restrepo, To Be Or Not To Be A Cooperating Defendant, Crim. Justice 25 (Winter 1993) (“Practically speaking, judges rarely deny the [substantial assistance] motion outright ….”). 37 Until the Supreme Court decided Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (April 3, 2017), it was unclear whether district courts in such cases had the authority to vary below the guideline range for another count of conviction (e.g., robbery, sentenced under USSG §2B3.1) to account for a perceived excessive total penalty level resulting from a consecutive statutory mandatory minimum sentence such as that required by section 924(c). Before Dean, some judges varied on that ground (see, e.g., United States v. Roberson, 573 F. Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (varying from the guideline minimum of 46 months for a bank robbery conviction to 1 month in order to account for a 84-month consecutive sentence under § 924(c)), while others believed that they had no such authority to vary on that ground. The percent difference from the guideline minimum in cases where courts did vary on that ground was usually very substantial. Because the extent of a below range sentence was often extremely large when a judge varied—and thereby could skew those judges’ average percent differences from the guideline minimums compared to the average percent difference of judges who did not believe they could vary on that ground—all cases with a count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) or 1028A or other statutes requiring a consecutive mandatory sentence of imprisonment were excluded from the Commission’s analysis. In addition, the Commission excluded cases with a single count of conviction under such a statute because a court lacked authority to depart or vary downwardly in such cases. 38 Since 2010, when the Commission amended the Sentencing Table to expand Zone B by one offense level, a case with a guideline minimum of less than 10 months necessarily has fallen in Zone A or Zone B of the Sentencing Table. Before 2010, cases with guideline minimums of 8 or 9 months fell within Zone C. In order to ensure consistency in the Commission’s analysis of cases from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2017, the Commission has excluded all cases with guideline minimums less than 10 months for that entire time period rather than exclude cases based on their zone designation. The Commission excluded such cases for two reasons. First, because all cases in Zone A have guideline minimums of 0 months, judges cannot depart or vary below the minimum and, in addition, there is no mathematical way to calculate the percent difference from the guideline minimum when a court imposes a sentence above the minimum in such cases. Second, because all of ranges with guideline minimums below 10 months are narrow and their minimums are low (e.g., 0-6 months, 6-12 months), sentences imposed above or below the guideline minimums have a much greater positive or negative percent difference than typical sentences above or below the guideline minimums in Zones C and D. The latter ranges have higher and broader ranges of months (e.g., 12-18 months, 46-57 months, and 121-151 months). Including cases with guideline minimums below 10 months would thus skew the average percent difference analysis. 130 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports ENDNOTES 39 The Commission excluded 10,753 cases because of incomplete sentencing information in those cases. Such cases were excluded because they did not allow the Commission to make determinations such as the guideline minimum in a case or whether a statutory mandatory minimum penalty applied. 40 Of the 291,763 cases, 3.7% were excluded for insufficient documentation. In addition, 15.7% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 26.1% had a substantial assistance or fast-track departure; 5.6% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as section 924(c); 0.6% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure and variance to life imprisonment; and 15.5% had guideline minimums of less than 10 months. Some cases fell within more than one of these groups, which explains why the total amount of all these cases combined exceeds the total percentage of excluded cases mentioned above. 41 After both the exclusions of the five categories of cases and the additional exclusions of cases handled by judges who did not meet the 50-case minimum and cases with incomplete information, the national caseload resembles the 30-city caseload during the same 13-year time period. After the same exclusions, the same percentage of all cases, 49.2% (478,833 of 972,648 cases), remained. The percentage of excluded cases (nationally) was as follows: 19.1% had their guideline minimums trumped by a statutory mandatory minimum or were subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act; 21.1% had a substantial assistance or fast-track departure; 4.2% had at least one mandatory consecutive statutory minimum sentence under a statute such as section 924(c); 0.5% had a guideline minimum of life imprisonment or involved an upward departure and variance to life imprisonment; and 21.8% of cases had guideline minimums of less than 10 months. The analysis also excluded 6.1% of cases nationally because of incomplete sentencing information in the documentation submitted to the Commission. 42 See Yang, supra note 27, at 1324-25. 43 In over 90% of the 19,460 cases subject to mandatory minimum penalties (17,755, or 91.2%), defendants were subject to either 60- or 120-month mandatory minimum sentences. The remaining 8.7% of cases had a wide variety of statutes requiring mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 1 month to 300 months. Of the cases with 60-month mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 118 months and the average sentence imposed was 97 months (37 months above the statutory mandatory minimum). Of the cases with 120-month mandatory minimum sentences, the average guideline minimum was 198 months and the average sentence imposed was 171 months (51 months above the mandatory minimum). 44 See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 50 n.6; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1903-04, 1908 (2018); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1349 (2016); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 535, 542, 545 (2013). The three-step Booker process is discussed at USSG §1B1.1, comment. (backg’d). 45 Of the cases in which judges imposed sentences outside of the guideline ranges, judges departed or varied downwardly in 95.4% of cases and departed or varied upwardly in 4.6% of cases (a nearly 21:1 ratio between downward and upward departures and variances). 46 See, e.g., Scott, supra note 27, at 31-34 (comparing average sentences of judges in Boston after Booker); Paul J. Hofer et al., The Effect of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity, 90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 239, 286-96 (1999) (comparing average sentences for judges in several cities, both before and after effective date of federal sentencing guidelines). 47 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics S-32 (2017) (Table 13) (average sentence for drug-trafficking cases was 70 months, and average sentence for firearms cases was 71 months; conversely, average sentence for immigration cases was 12 months and average sentence for fraud cases was 26 months). 48 In the past two decades, the national average guideline minimum for all federal offenders consistently has been around five years (60 months). See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Federal Alternative-To-Incarceration Court Programs 32 (2017) (average guideline minimum in 2016 was 59 months); 2012 Booker Report, at 60 (showing guideline minimum slightly above or slightly below 60 months from 1996 through 2011). 49 See Michael O. Finkelstein & Bruce Levin, Statistics for Lawyers 22 (2d ed. 2000). 50 For example, if the judge at the top of the bar graph had an average percent difference of 10.0% and the judge at the bottom of the bar graph had an average percent difference of -40.0%, the total spread for the city would be 50.0. 51 Ottavania v. State University of New York at New Paltz, 875 F.2d 365, 371 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 131 Intra-City Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices January 2019 52 Charlotte, Memphis, and San Antonio each had fewer than five judges in at least one period. 53 The specific percentages (taken to two decimal points) were 32.43% and 17.02%, which when summed and rounded equals 49.5. 54 The following 23 cities had increases in their total spreads from the Booker to Gall Periods: Alexandria, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, and Tampa. The following seven cities had decreases in their total spreads from the Booker to Gall Periods: Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Manhattan, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Seattle. The following 22 cities had increases in their standard deviations from the Booker to Gall Periods: Alexandria, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, and Tampa. The following five cities had decreases in their standard deviations from the Booker to Gall Periods: Cleveland, Columbus, Manhattan, Oklahoma City, and Seattle. 55 The following 20 cities had increases in their total spreads from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Alexandria, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Memphis, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Juan, and Seattle. The following ten cities had decreases in their total spreads from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Tampa. The following 16 cities had increases in their standard deviations from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Juan, and Seattle. The following 11 cities had decreases in their standard deviations from the Gall to Post-Report Periods: Alexandria, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Tampa. 56 The main four guidelines constituted 71.0% of all cases in the Commission’s city-level dataset, while all other guidelines constituted 29.0% of cases. 57 Because of rounding to one decimal point, some of the totals for the cities in Appendix C add up to less than 100.0%. 58 Weighting is a common technique in the social sciences whereby a researcher assigns comparable weights to different datapoints in an analysis in order to control for unweighted differences. Weighting is most commonly used in survey methodology. See, e.g., Luke W. Miratrix et al., Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey Experiments, 26 Political Analysis 275 (2018). The Commission used a somewhat similar method to control for differences in caseload composition among the judges in each city and among the cities’ caseloads over time. 59 For that weighting analysis, only judges who met the 50-case minimum for two consecutive periods (e.g., Booker to Gall, or Gall to Post-Report) were included in order to determine the effect of changes in the city’s caseload composition from one period to the next. Therefore, it is not possible to compare all three periods to each other because there were not the exact same judges in all three periods in any of the 30 cities. Therefore, only two periods at a time (Booker to Gall, and Gall to Post-Report) could be compared based on the judges common to those two periods. 60 Of all major guideline types, illegal reentry (§2L1.2) had the highest within-range rate from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2017 (after the case exclusions discussed above): Average Within-Range Rates (Fiscal Years 2005-2017) 2B1.1: 46.0% 2D1.1: 46.1% 2K2.1: 60.8% 2L1.2: 61.1% Other: 49.6% 132 | https://www.ussc.gov/topic/research-reports ENDNOTES 61 In the Booker and Gall Periods, Houston had the following percentages of guideline types: Booker Period Gall Period 2B1.1: 7.8% 2D1.1: 20.3% 2K2.1: 17.2% 2L1.2: 24.0% Other: 30.7% 2B1.1: 8.0% 2D1.1: 10.9% 2K2.1: 8.3% 2L1.2: 51.2% Other: 21.6% 62 Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 291 (3d ed. 2011). 63 Id. 64 See, e.g., Nancy Pfenning, Elementary Statistics 96-97 (2011) (discussing the 1.5 x IQR test). 65 Although there were 413 different judges in the 30-city dataset, many of those judges sentenced in more than one period. Therefore, the outlier analysis includes a total of 909 unique analyses of judicial sentencing practices in the dataset during three periods. Note that a judge could be an outlier in one period but not an outlier in a different period. 66 The cities with at least one outlier judge in at least one period were Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Juan, and Tampa. 67 298. See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 49, at 18-19; see also FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra, at 68 Rebecca M. Warner, Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques 1114 (2013 2d ed). 69 The standard deviation is a less meaningful statistic when there are only a few datapoints being analyzed. The Commission thus only has reported the standard deviation for cities with at least five judges in all three periods. 70 See Finkelstein & Levin, supra note 49, at 18-19 (discussing the manner in which the standard deviation is calculated); Warner, supra note 68, at 59 (same). Reporting the standard deviation is preferable to reporting the variance. The variance, which is the standard deviation squared, is more sensitive to outliers than the standard deviation because the influence of an outlier is magnified (insofar as the outlier’s average percent difference from the guideline minimum is squared in calculating the variance). 133 United States Sentencing Commission WWW.USSC.GOV THURGOOD MARSHALL FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUILDING ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE N.E. SUITE 2-500, SOUTH LOBBY WASHINGTON, DC 20002-8002