Sentencing Factors Clause Samples
The Sentencing Factors clause outlines the specific considerations a court must evaluate when determining an appropriate sentence for a convicted individual. These factors may include the severity of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and the impact on victims. By clearly identifying what should influence sentencing decisions, this clause ensures consistency and fairness in judicial outcomes, helping to prevent arbitrary or disproportionate punishments.
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following United States 23 Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) provisions apply to this case:
24 a. A base offense level of 6, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(a)(2).
25 b. An offense level enhancement of 30 levels (+30), based on a loss 26 amount of more than $550,000,000, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P). For the 27 purposes of this plea agreement, the parties agree to limit the number of stolen payment 28 cards to 20 million, which represents the approximate number of unique card numbers 1 recovered to date. Pursuant to Application Note 3(F)(i), a $500 loss amount is imputed to 2 each payment card, resulting in a total loss amount, for Guidelines purposes, of $10 3 billion.
4 c. An offense level enhancement of 2 levels (+2), because the offense 5 involved more than 10 victims, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A).
6 d. An offense level enhancement of 2 levels (+2), because the offense 8 receiving and selling stolen property, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(4).
9 e. An offense level enhancement of 2 levels (+2), because a substantial 10 part of the fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States and because 11 the offense involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in and 12 caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10).
13 f. An offense level enhancement of 2 levels (+2), because the offense 14 involved the trafficking in unauthorized access devices and counterfeit access devices 15 and because the offense involved the possession of more than 5 means of identification 16 that were unlawfully obtained, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(11).
17 g. An offense level enhancement of 3 levels (+3), because the 18 defendant was a manager (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity 19 involved more than five participants and was extensive, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(b).
20 h. An offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, as set 21 forth in paragraph 12, below, conditioned upon Defendant’s fulfillment of the 22 requirements stated at USSG § 3E1.1.
23 i. Defendant’s Guidelines range is 25 years, because the statutory 24 authorized sentence is less than the minimum of the applicable Guidelines range, 25 pursuant to USSG § 5G1.1. 26 The parties agree they are free to present arguments regarding the applicability of 27 all other provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands, 28 however, that at the time of sentencing, the Court i...
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing 7 Guidelines provisions apply to this case:
8 a. Defendant’s offense is governed by § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing 9 Guidelines;
10 b. Defendant’s base offense level is 7, pursuant to § 2B1.1(a)(1), 11 because Defendant is pleading guilty to wire fraud, which is 12 referenced to § 2B1.1 and has a statutory maximum of 20 years;
13 c. Defendant’s offense level is increased by 16 levels pursuant to 14 § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), because the loss exceeded $1,500,000, but did not 15 exceed $3,500,000, after excluding the amount of the smaller of the 16 two loan amounts for Zuput and Expect Success, for each of which 17 Defendant submitted two loan applications, and also the amount of 18 the loan for which he withdrew his application for Vangal;
19 d. Defendant’s offense level is increased by 2 levels, pursuant to 20 § 2B1.1(b)(10), because the offense involved sophisticated means;
21 e. Defendant’s offense level is increased by 1 level, pursuant to 22 § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A), because Defendant is pleading guilty to money 23 laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
24 f. As a result, Defendant’s total offense level, prior to any adjustment 25 for acceptance of responsibility, is 26. 26 Defendant understands, that at the time of sentencing, the Court is free to reject 27 these stipulated adjustments, and is further free to apply additional downward or upward
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing 17 Guidelines provisions apply to this case:
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing 13 Guidelines provisions apply to this case:
14 a. For Count 1, a base offense level of 28 under USSG § 2D1.1(a)(6) 15 (at least 700 KG but less than 1,000 KG of Converted Drug Weight).
16 b. A 2-level increase because Defendant distributed a controlled 17 substance through mass-marketing by means of an interactive computer service under 18 USSG § 2D1.1(b)(7).
19 c. A 3-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 20 § 3E1.1 (see paragraph 10 below). 21 The parties agree that they are free to present arguments regarding the 22 applicability of all other provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, such as 23 USSG § 2D1.1(b)(13) and USSG § 3B1.1. 24 Defendant understands that at the time of sentencing, the Court is free to reject 25 these stipulated adjustments, and is further free to apply additional downward or upward 26 adjustments in determining Defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range.
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that pursuant to United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (2005), the Court must determine an advisory sentencing guideline range pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”). The Court will then determine a reasonable sentence within the statutory range after considering the advisory sentencing guideline range and the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The parties’ agreement herein to any guideline sentencing factors constitutes proof of those factors sufficient to satisfy the applicable burden of proof.
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing
Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing 27 Guidelines provisions apply to this case:
1 a. For the offense of Bank Burglary, as charged in Count 1, a base offense 2 level of 12, pursuant to Section 2B2.1(a)(2);
3 b. For the offense of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Aircraft, as charged in 4 Count 2, a base offense level of 6, pursuant to Section 2B1.1(a)(2);
5 c. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 2 should be 6 increased by 12, because the amount of loss for Count 2 was more than 7 $200,000.00, but less than $400,000.00, pursuant to Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) 8 and (H);
9 d. For the offense of Interstate and Foreign Transportation of a Stolen 10 Firearm, as charged in Count 3, a base offense level of 14, pursuant to 11 Section 2K2.1(a)(6)(A);
12 e. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 3 should be 13 increased by 2, because the offense charged in Count 3 involved a stolen 14 firearm, pursuant to Section 2K2.1(a)(6) and (b)(4);
15 f. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 3 should be 16 increased by 4, because the defendant used or possessed the firearm in 17 connection with another felony offense, pursuant to Section 2K2.1(b)(6).
18 g. For the offense of Fugitive in Possession of a Firearm, as charged in Count 19 4, a base offense level of 14, pursuant to Section 2K2.1(a)(6)(A);
20 h. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 4 should be 21 increased by 2, because the offense charged in Count 4 involved a stolen 22 firearm, pursuant to Section 2K2.1(a)(6) and (b)(4);
23 i. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 4 should be 24 increased by 4, because the defendant used or possessed the firearm in 25 connection with another felony offense, pursuant to Section 2K2.1(b)(6).
26 j. For the offense of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Vessel, as charged in 27 Count 6, a base offense level of 6, pursuant to Section 2B1.1(a)(2);
1 k. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 6 should be 2 increased by 14, because the amount of loss for Count 2 was more than 3 $400,000.00, but less than $1,000,000.00, pursuant to Section 4 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) and (I).
5 l. For the offense of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Aircraft, as charged in 6 Count 7, a base offense level of 6, pursuant to Section 2B1.1(a)(2);
7 m. The parties agree that the offense level associated with Count 7 should be 8 increased by 14, because the amount o...