U.S.S.G. § 1B1.12
Persons Sentenced Under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act
§1B1.12. Persons Sentenced Under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (Policy Statement)
The sentencing guidelines do not apply to a defendant sentenced under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 5031–5042). However, the sentence imposed upon a juvenile delinquent may not exceed the maximum of the guideline range applicable to an otherwise similarly situated adult defendant unless the court finds an aggravating factor sufficient to warrant imposing a sentence greater than that guideline range in determining the appropriate sentence to impose pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c); United States v. R.L.C., 503 U.S. 291 (1992). Therefore, a necessary step in ascertaining the maximum sentence that may be imposed upon a juvenile delinquent is the determination of the guideline range that would be applicable to a similarly situated adult defendant.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1993 (amendment 475). Amended effective November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: United States v. M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2008). “Nor does the statute governing, juvenile dispositions, 18 U.”
United States v. Male Juv. (Pierre Y.), 280 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2002). “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.12. However, they are relevant to determining the proper sentence under the Act.”
United States v. Juv., 347 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2003). “4 The maximum term of “official detention” to which a juvenile may be sentenced is the lesser of the period until the juvenile turns twenty-one years old or the maximum that could be imposed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 5037 (c). Although the…”
United States v. Gregory M. Thomas, 114 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.12. Conversely, a person who has reached twenty-one can be criminally indicted for the acts committed under eighteen because it is assumed he can no longer benefit from FJDA protections.”
United States v. D. B., 61 F.4th 608 (8th Cir. 2023). “; see USSG § 1B1.12. Nor does the FJDA provision governing juvenile dispositions, 18 U.”
United States v. K.R.A., 337 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2003). “USSG § 1B1.12, p.s.; R.L.C., 503 U.S. at 307 n.”
United States v. C.T.H., 685 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2012). “Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.12.) The district court’s finding that CTH was responsible for 647 grams of heroin undisputedly had that effect here.”
J.P.C. (JUV) v. United States, 430 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D.S.D. 2006). “[¶ 25] BOP would violate the specific directives above by not granting the credit. [¶ 26] We hear it said that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to juveniles.”
United States v. Juv. Male, 116 F. App'x 472 (5th Cir. 2004). “See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.12. Finally, JM argues that the district court erroneously applied an eight-level enhancement under U.”
United States v. K.R.A. (8th Cir. 2003). “USSG § 1B1.12, p.s.; R.L.C., 503 U.S. at 307 n.”
United States v. M.R.M. (8th Cir. 2008). “7; USSG § 1B1.12; see 28 U.S.C. § 995 (a)(19) (providing that the Sentencing Commission -2- shall have power to “study the feasibility of developing guidelines for the disposition of juvenile delinquents”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.