« En banc Third Circuit to reconsider constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)'s felon-in-possession gun prohibition after Bruen | Main | Brennan Center assesses "Criminal Legal Reform Halfway Through the Biden Administration" »
January 10, 2023
US Sentencing Commission releases "Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System"
This morning, the US Sentencing Commission has released this interesting new report titled "Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System." This USSC webpage provides this summary and key findings:
The report entitled Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System updates a 2016 Commission study and examines sentences for simple possession of marijuana offenses in two respects. Part One of the report assesses trends in federal sentencings for simple possession of marijuana since fiscal year 2014. The report then describes the demographic characteristics, criminal history, and sentencing outcomes of federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years and compares them to federal offenders sentenced for possession of other drug types.
Part Two of the report examines how prior sentences for simple possession of marijuana (under both federal and state law) affect criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for new federal offenses. The report identifies how many federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021 — for any crime type — received criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual for prior marijuana possession sentences. The report then assesses the impact of such points on those offenders’ criminal history category, one of the two components used to establish the sentencing guideline range.
Key Findings
Federal Sentencings for Simple Possession of Marijuana
- The number of federal offenders sentenced for simple possession of marijuana is relatively small and has been declining steadily from 2,172 in fiscal year 2014 to only 145 in fiscal year 2021.
- The overall trends were largely driven by one district, the District of Arizona, which accounted for nearly 80 percent (78.9%) of all federal marijuana possession sentencings since 2014. As the number of such cases in the District of Arizona declined from a peak of 1,916 in 2014 to just two in fiscal year 2021, the overall federal caseload followed a similar pattern.
- Federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years tended to be male (85.5%), Hispanic (70.8%), and non-U.S. citizens (59.8%). A little over two-thirds (70.1%) were sentenced to prison; the average prison sentence imposed was five months.
- As of January 2022, no offenders sentenced solely for simple possession of marijuana remained in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Impact of Prior Sentences for Simple Possession of Marijuana
- In fiscal year 2021, 4,405 federal offenders (8.0%) received criminal history points under the federal sentencing guidelines for prior marijuana possession sentences. Most of the prior sentences (79.3%) were for less than 60 days in prison, including non-custodial sentences. Furthermore, ten percent (10.2%) of these 4,405 offenders had no other criminal history points.
- The criminal history points assigned under the federal sentencing guidelines for prior marijuana possession sentences resulted in a higher criminal history category for 1,765 of the 4,405 offenders (40.1%).
- Of the 1,765 offenders whose criminal history category was impacted by a prior marijuana possession sentence, most were male (94.2%), U.S. citizens (80.0%), and either Black (41.7%) or Hispanic (40.1%).
- Nearly all (97.0%) of the prior marijuana possession sentences were for state convictions, some of which were from states that have changed their laws to decriminalize (22.2%) or legalize (18.2%) marijuana possession, states that allow for expungement or sealing of marijuana possession records (19.7%), or some combination thereof. Prior sentences for marijuana possession from these states resulted in higher criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for 695 offenders.
January 10, 2023 at 10:16 AM | Permalink
Comments
What was the actual conduct, and what was the pled to conduct?
Posted by: federalist | Jan 10, 2023 11:20:28 AM
What do you think is the valid basis for analysis, federalist? How might Bogdan Vechirko respond to this question?
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 10, 2023 1:17:34 PM
I can't speak for Mr. Vechirko, but we do have the videotape. We do know that he did not enter the highway illegally, and we know he did his damnedest to stop his truck. Of course, that you don't see his case as an indictment of the entire DFL establishment in MN, well, that's just your partisanship. Can you imagine going through the indignity of having to deal with restorative justice with some twit whining about PTSD. Yuck. Just for that, the prosecutor should be imprisoned for life.
As for pleas--you cannot be blind to the fact that a significant amount of those in the pokey for "possession" entered into a plea deal.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 10, 2023 2:34:18 PM
My point, federalist, is that lots of folks take deals for all sorts of reasons and on the basis of all sorts of contestable charges. Some may take pleas believing they have done a lot worse than the terms of the plea; some may take pleas believing they have done nothing wrong but not having faith in the criminal justice system to fairly adjudicate their case. In the Vechirko case, you came away with no faith in the criminal justice establishment in MN. I surmise you are not the only one lacking in such faith in many jurisdictions, and that lack of faith likely drives more than a few plea deals.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 10, 2023 2:53:17 PM
All fair points, but we're looking at things from a macro level, and assuredly, you aren't blind to the fact that more serious conduct often gets pled down, so to speak, so speaking about imprisonment for possession in a vacuum is somewhat misleading.
The Hennepin County DA's office and the DFL establishment in MN are impugned by what happened to Vechirko. But because the antagonists are members of your team, you give them a pass. What a joke.
But hey, you couldn't even come to the conclusion that Obama lying to a vet's widow is more appalling than Trump's birtherism or that Barack Obama was a disloyal liar for denigrating the war effort in Afghanistan by claiming that US servicemen were "just" bombing villages and killing people. Given the fact that the US military strives mightily to avoid civilian casualties, Obama's smear is sickening.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 10, 2023 3:01:03 PM
What has your partisan juices cooking today, federalist? I have not given anyone a "pass," nor am I am member of any "team." You are the one who sounds like a partisan clown by making such silly claims. Rather, I am making the point that anyone who thinks the CJ system wronged an innocent person in the Vechirko case ought to be open to the notion that it has wronged many others (and not just one out of every 1000). Ergo, though a plea might in some case be cover for worse conduct, in other cases it may be the only way an innocent person feels he needs to resolve suspect charges.
Meanwhile, I surmise your military background accounts for your obvious disaffinity for Obama. (Also, Trump reportedly called fallen veterans losers and suckers and repeatedly lied about veteran health care programs, but I have yet to see you express concerns on these fronts.) The broad point is I have still yet to find a single person who shares your apparent belief that, policy differences aside, Trump has been a more moral public figure than Obama. Perhaps I misunderstand your claims/beliefs about Trump's morality, but I sense my view is in the mainstream among folks of all political perspectives, whereas your view is at best "unique"and at worst puts into partisan disrepute all your other contentions and claims.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 10, 2023 3:32:32 PM
You raise a valid point about the plea process Mr.Berman. The entire process of plea bargaining, especially on the federal level, is beyond appalling.
First, charges are oftentimes premised on the word of cooperators. These individuals have criminal histories that are indefensible and they've learned how to game the system---cooperating is now part of the fabric by which they live and thrive. Furthermore, their criminal histories more often than not are worse than the individuals to whom they are given a pass for with their 'substantial' assistance.
Second, some---but not all, prosecutors aren't concerned about public safety because these individuals on whom they rely as cooperators are committing a broad swath of the crimes in their communities. But, because they are able to aid the prosecution in padding a record of convictions---that do little to nothing to make the community more safe given that the cooperators are committing the crimes and gaming the system---they are given free reign to terrorize the community.
Third, a vast majority of cases are brought with the aid of these cooperators. They vow to testify truthfully, in accordance with the language of their deal, but in reality their testimony is self-serving. When their blatant inconsistencies are exposed, prosecutors---in far too many cases for comfort---never move to withdraw their cooperation agreements and far too many district courts don't penalize these individuals for their mistruths when the time arrives for sentencing.
Fourth, lawyers (public defenders, especially) are overworked and underpaid. They have, unfortunately, become pawns in this game of plea-bargaining. The defendant may be guilty of something so if, which often happens, the initial indictment is overcharged, then the defendant will very likely plead to some lesser crime that s/he may or may not have committed.
In the end, people take deals for all sorts of reasons. They often committed 'some' crime but far too often they are overcharged and end up pleading to some 'offense' out of fear of exercising their 6th Amendment right to a trial for the charges that they know that they have not committed. This is no defense of the law-breaker. It's an indictment of the system.
It is very easy to sit on the sideline and pass judgment as some of us do. But I do remember a swath of the public chastising and castigating cooperators very recently when it appeared that those cooperators were providing information against 'their' public officials. This same crowd ironically accepts the words of cooperators as 'gospel' when it involves inner-city crime. Of course, they will tell you they don't. But where do they think all of these convictions come from? They oftentimes only see the world through their partisan lenses because it fits their 'narrative.'
The system is broken. That's the simple reality. It won't get fixed until the 'people' who the system is comprised fix it.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 10, 2023 3:40:36 PM
Trump denied having called vets losers. And it's so funny how you can't just admit that Obama disparaged the war effort . . . . facts are stubborn things.
I didn't say that the CJ system got it right (as in perfect procedure) 999 out of 1000, just that punishes the guilty at that rate. But I will readily admit, this bail thing bothers me a lot.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 10, 2023 4:50:51 PM
And you can't admit that relying on pled possession for possession only is a bit of a stretch . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jan 10, 2023 5:23:37 PM
Trump also denied having lost the 2020 election, federalist, and it's so funny how you can't see that only a particular type of partisan sees Trump as a moral paragon. It is also funny that right after you suggest the CJ system soundly punishes the guilty in 999 out of 1000 cases, you then assert that most of those who plead to MJ possession are in fact guilty of more. So does the system usually get it right or usually get it wrong?
Rereading your unclear plea comments, I am struggling to understand if your main point is just that those (relatively rare) defendants sent to prison after MJ possession guilty pleas are likely often involved in more criminality. If that is what you are trying to say, I would generally agree. But that is not what this USSC report is principally discussing. In fact, it notes that in Part One that "As of January 2022, no offenders sentenced solely for simple possession of marijuana remained in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons." And it notes in Part Two that lots of federal defendants get criminal history points for prior MJ possession offenses even when those offenses produced a non-custodial sentence.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 10, 2023 10:12:58 PM
Do we know what the story is in D. Arizona? Unless the judges there are radically out of step with the mainstream on sentencing, a lot of defendants are pleading to simple possession based on facts that are considerably more serious than what you think of as your run-of-the-mill simple possession case.
Is this some sort of de facto fast-track program? A concerted effort by the defense bar to avoid felony convictions for a client population where that may have severe immigration consequences for many people? Something else?
Posted by: Jason | Jan 10, 2023 11:28:07 PM
The USSC in a prior report, Jason, detailed many of the distinctions between so-called "Border" and "Non-Border" offenders convicted of MJ possession: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/201609_Simple-Possession.pdf
But the USSC has never fully explained fully what exactly is going on with these "Border" cases, and I was disappointed that this new report did not break down more fully the details of the possession offenses as was done in the prior report.
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 11, 2023 9:22:11 AM
"you then assert that most of those who plead to MJ possession are in fact guilty of more"
Surely you've heard of "pled down", no?
Posted by: federalist | Jan 11, 2023 9:59:15 AM
"Trump also denied having lost the 2020 election, federalist"
Given the FBI's thumb on scale and Joe Biden's active taking advantage of that thumb, then he can say the election was unfair and he didn't lose it. I seriously doubt you want to go toe to toe on this issue.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 11, 2023 10:00:39 AM
Marijuana really only has implications when it is being used as a basis to revoke someone's probation or SR.
That should be a report unto itself.
Posted by: FPD | Jan 11, 2023 10:53:12 AM
Of course I have heard of pleading down, federalist, but it is unclear whether you are asserting that ALL OR MOST of the entire pool of people with marijuana possession convictions are "pleading down" OR if you are just asserting that ALL OR MOST of those people with marijuana possession convictions who were sentenced to incarceration are "pleading down." These are VERY different pools of persons with convictions, since the vast majority of folks with marijuana possession convictions are NOT sentenced to any term of incarceration.
Meanwhile, though I am not sure this is the ideal forum, you are welcome to give your partisan account of why you think Trump actually won the 2020 election. Does it include 2000 mules?
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 11, 2023 10:56:16 AM
I am asserting that talking about MJ possession stats in a vacuum (i.e., not considering the underlying conduct) is somewhat misleading. That's all.
As for Trump, I didn't assert that he won the election--I asserted that he could make a case that it was unfair (and hence illegitimate) and that he therefore won. We all know that law enforcement used its considerable powers to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, and Biden made use of that suppression to lie through his teeth in a debate. We also know that Joe Biden okayed the hamstringing of Trump's presidency by agreeing that Michael Flynn should be investigated based on the Logan Act. We also know that the Pa. election was held under illegal processes.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 11, 2023 11:08:05 AM
Trump has made a lot of "cases" about all sorts of purported unfairness. And I surmise many partisans think of him as quite the victim.
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 11, 2023 11:58:22 AM
Thanks, Doug. So in the prior data set, it seems pretty clear that most of the "border" cases were really trafficking cases that were not charged as such:
<>
It would be helpful to know if the decline in simple-possession charges was due to fewer people meeting whatever the charging profile was (low-level mules?) or whether those cases are being handled differently in recent years (felony prosecution? no prosecution?). But the report doesn't really offer any hints.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 11, 2023 12:04:20 PM
quote was deleted from prior comment:
Non-Border offenders generally were found with only a
small amount of marijuana. The median weight of marijuana among Non-Border
offenders was 5.2 grams (0.2 ounces). In contrast, the median weight of the marijuana
found among Border offenders was 22,000 grams (48.5 pounds or 776.0 ounces).
Posted by: Jason | Jan 11, 2023 12:04:59 PM
Jason: my sense is that formal and informal changes in the processing of immigration cases (eg "fast-track" policies) in part account for changing border prosecutions in MJ possession cases over the last two decades. Folks who work there would know a lot better than me as to the particulars, and I share your dissapointment that we do not get more intricacies from the USSC. Also, I have co-authored a short article detailing that there have been a huge decline in ALL federal MJ prosecutions due largely to much less cross-border traffic of MJ: "How State Reforms Have Mellowed Federal Enforcement of Marijuana Prohibition" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3965571
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 11, 2023 1:38:01 PM
Federalist, Donald Trump has been the most pernicious and malignant influence in American politics since Jefferson Davis. As for Trump's credibility, I'm still waiting for the "astounding discoveries" of the investigative team he sent to Hawaii relating to Obama's birth. He promised to release those discoveries, and we're still waiting and waiting...just like he promised to releases his tax returns. History will remember the twice impeached Trump as the liar in chief, tax dodger in chief, grifter in chief, and insurrectionist in chief. I remain confident that folks are even now measuring the drapes for his prison cell.
Posted by: anon | Jan 11, 2023 4:19:26 PM
"Trump brought the three horsemen of the apocalypse — immorality, dishonesty and bigotry."
Posted by: Dave 22 | Jan 11, 2023 7:35:24 PM
Kudos to Dave 22 and anon for their honest assessments of the former occupier of the White House. My grandmother once told me, "if you have nothing good to say about someone, don't say anything." In this instance, I will follow her advice.
My disappointment is reserved for those who continuously defend this person with a straight face. It tells us much more about who they are than we probably are comfortable knowing. And it tells us how low people will go in the debasement of themselves all in the name of an agenda that is unmoored from reality and traffics in the very worst traits of America.
The only thing left for the former occupier of the White House to do is borrow a page from former President Andrew Johnson and pardon everyone associated with the January 6th attack on our democracy. Somehow, his sycophants would find a way to justify that as well.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 12, 2023 7:55:19 AM
Guys, it's a matter of public record that the FBI/DOJ: (a) went soft on Hillary--in plain violation of the Federal Records Act, she conducted the people's business (much of which involved classified info)--they granted Cheryl Mills immunity based on the idea that she was Hillary's lawyer (balderdash, she worked for the state department and so was not Hillary's lawyer), (b) cooked up a Russia-collusion narrative and illegally spied on Trump's campaign, (c) conducted a Logan Act investigation on Flynn and doctored the 302s to make him look guilty and (c) suppressed the Hunter Biden story.
You can talk all you want about Trump, but this stuff actually undermines democracy and makes the 2020 election completely unfair. It ain't about Trump. I find Trump selfish and distasteful, but I also think that he was a great president. Joe Biden lied through his teeth in the presidential debate about the Hunter laptop and the national security apparatus and the national criminal justice apparatus gave Joe Biden cover. Let's start by getting that right.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 12, 2023 8:42:34 AM
"conducted the people's business on a private, unsecured server"
"The only thing left for the former occupier of the White House to do is borrow a page from former President Andrew Johnson and pardon everyone associated with the January 6th attack on our democracy. Somehow, his sycophants would find a way to justify that as well."
Someone should--given the dismissals of all the charges against Portland rioters, the dismissal of charges against the 2017 DC rioters etc.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 12, 2023 8:45:16 AM
Federalist says he thinks Trump was "a great president." Was Trump great when he downplayed and made fun of the the seriousness of Covid, promoted snake oil like like hydroxychloroquine, and indirectly caused the death of many thousands? Was he great when he separated parents from their children at the border, some of which families will never be reunited? Was he great when put the children in virtual cages? Was he great when he instigated insurrection against the government, the first President to resist the peaceful transfer of power? Was he great when he threatened to withhold arms from Ukraine unless Zelensky make up a fake investigation into Biden. Was he great when he made fun of and ridiculed a reporter who suffered from a Parkinson's type disease? Was he a great president when he praised a Congressman who body-slammed a reporter? Was he great when he says he believes Putin and trusts him more than our own intelligence agencies? Was he great when he never accepts responsibility of any mistake, but always blames someone else? Was he great when he promised to release his tax return but never did so? Was he great when his tax returns show him to pay virtually no taxes in many years and to be a busines failure and almost certain tax cheat? Was he great when he consider fascists and neo-Nazis and Jew-haters to be "fine people" (remember: "fine people on both sides").
As anon stated above, "Donald Trump has been the most pernicious and malignant influence in American politics since Jefferson Davis. " Those who think otherwise. like Federalist, should think again.
Posted by: Texas Tim | Jan 12, 2023 1:30:33 PM
Texas Tim--you show your complete f'in ignorance when you denigrate HCQ as snake oil. I'll explain later.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 12, 2023 1:47:25 PM
Federalist, your language is getting nasty. You never did respond to my list of Trump's "great" actions. As for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), research data show the use of HCQ for treating COVID-19 can be dangerous and has no medical benefit. In fact, the FDA revoked emergency use authorization for HCQ in COVID-19 patients based on these dangers and because it does not help people recover faster. HCQ should not be taken for COVID-19 infection because it can cause serious heart rhythm abnormalities, severe liver inflammation, and kidney failure.
Posted by: Texas Tim | Jan 12, 2023 3:21:35 PM
Because Federalist believes Trump to have been a "great President," I will be unable to trust his judgment with respect to anything he posts.
Posted by: long time observer | Jan 12, 2023 6:38:52 PM
he 2018 Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars reported George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson as the top five US presidents, with SCRI director Don Levy stating, "The top five, Mount Rushmore plus FDR, is carved in granite with presidential historians...."[30] Donald Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, whom presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved in position to the bottom of the third quartile. A 2021 C-SPAN poll continued a recent rehabilitation of Ulysses Grant, with Bush improving yet again, Obama remaining high and Trump near the bottom.
Posted by: Hanna23 | Jan 12, 2023 6:44:46 PM
Regarding HCQ: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03841-8 and it is a well-tolerated drug. Where are all the lupus patients with COVID-19?
As for COVID, does Warp Speed mean anything? But then, of course Joe Biden and Kamala "Boudoir INterview" Harris badmouthed the vaccine.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 13, 2023 2:36:06 AM
To everyone who has underscored the antics of the former President, once again---kudos to all of you. I would just remind you all that at this point you are "preaching to the (proverbial) choir" when it comes to highlighting the obvious social and moral deficiencies of this individual to his sycophants.
Never in my years of existence would I believe that the day would come when so many people would run the gamut when it comes to making excuses for the morally reprehensible and destructive conduct of a 70+ year-old man. I wonder if they would extend those kind of excuses to a teenage inner-city male enmeshed in the criminal justice system? I think, without a moments deliberation, we all know the answer to that question. This lamentable example tells me nothing of the antics of the 70+ year-old former President but reveals so much about those who continuously defend this person and have chosen to life lives detached from reality.
The world view of his sycophants embodies more than a heaping dose of delusion. To this pitiable lot, neither shame nor hypocrisy knows of any boundaries.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 13, 2023 10:39:12 AM
