Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 1

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4

Information to be Used in Imposing Sentence

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In determining the sentence to impose, the court may consider, without limitation, any information concerning the background, character and conduct of the defendant, unless otherwise prohibited by law.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3661.

 

Commentary

Background: This section distinguishes between factors that determine the applicable guideline sentencing range (§1B1.3) and information that a court may consider in imposing a sentence. The section is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which recodifies 18 U.S.C. § 3577. The recodification of this 1970 statute in 1984 with an effective date of 1987 (99 Stat. 1728), makes it clear that Congress intended that no limitation would be placed on the information that a court may consider in imposing an appropriate sentence under the future guideline sentencing system. A court is not precluded from considering information that the guidelines do not take into account. For example, if the defendant committed two robberies, but as part of a plea negotiation entered a guilty plea to only one, the robbery that was not taken into account by the guidelines may provide a reason for sentencing at the top of, or above, the guideline range.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective January 15, 1988 (amendment 4); November 1, 1989 (amendment 303); November 1, 2000 (amendment 604 ); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 280 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 1994). · cites it 8× “In addition, information that does not enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range may be considered in determining whether and to what extent to depart from the guidelines.”
United States v. Alfred Arnold Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “By contrast, evidence as to Ameline’s “background, character and conduct,” see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4, could have only affected the point within the Guidelines range at which Ameline would be sentenced.”
United States v. Robert William Jones, United States of Am. v. Donald Eugene Johnson, 907 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “§ 3661 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 — which ties, and thus limits, the power to invalidate convictions to the power to inquire into the defendant’s character — does not justify the exercise of judicial power asserted in its holding.”
United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 3661 , 5 and incorporated into the Guidelines by the Sentencing Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4. 6 “Both Congress and the Sentencing Commission thus expressly preserved the traditional discretion of sentencing courts to ‘conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either…”
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 (providing that sentencing court may consider “any information concerning the 18 court assured Broxmeyer that it would not increase his sentence based on that new information.”
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). · cites it 2× “But that practice, enshrined in § 3661 and USSG § 1B1.4, sheds little, if any, light on the appropriateness of the District Courts' application of USSG § 1B1.”
United States v. Chong in Kim, 25 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “” Governing selection of a sentence within the sentencing range corresponding to a given offense level, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 largely reiterates Section 3661, with the significant exception that under the former the sentencing judge may not weigh character or background evidence…”
United States v. James Michael Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “1101(d)(3) (rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing); 1 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 (“In determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range, or whether a departure from the guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without limitation, any information concerning the…”
United States v. Jose Jesus Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 permits the court to consider an unlimited range of information ‘‘[i]n determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range.”
United States v. Adriana Maria Burgos, 276 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “§ 3661 3 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 4 and maintains that the district court, in choosing the sentence within the guideline range, was authorized to consider, “without limitation, any information concerning the background, character, and conduct of the defendant.”
United States v. Anthony D. Barber, United States of Am. v. David L. Hodge, Jr., 119 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “Appellants overlook U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4, which expressly directs that “[i]n determining .”
United States v. Leon Brady, 928 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4, comment, (backg’d.); see also id.”
Show all 280 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.4(c) — 1 case
United States v. Michael J. Schaffer (8th Cir. 1997).
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.