Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 1

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7

Significance of Commentary

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§1B1.7.     Significance of Commentary

The Commentary that accompanies the guideline sections may serve a number of purposes. It may interpret the guideline or explain how it is to be applied. Failure to follow such commentary could constitute an incorrect application of the guidelines, subjecting the sentence to possible reversal on appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742. In addition, the commentary may provide background information, including factors considered in promulgating the guideline or reasons underlying promulgation of the guideline.

 

Commentary

Portions of this document not labeled as guidelines or commentary also express the policy of the Commission or provide guidance as to the interpretation and application of the guidelines.  These are to be construed as commentary and thus have the force of policy statements. 

"[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline."  Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1993 (amendment 498); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). · cites it 5× “” USSG § 1B1.7. *42 As we have observed, “the Guidelines bind judges and courts in the exercise of their uncontested responsibility to pass sentence in criminal cases.”
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7 ("Such commentary is to be treated as the legal equivalent of a policy statement.”
United States v. Lenair Moses, 23 F.4th 347 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7. Because we conclude that Stinson continues to apply unaltered by Kisor and that Application Note 5(C) must be afforded binding effect under Stinson, we also conclude that the district court did not err in applying the career-offender enhancement when…”
United States v. Antoinette Adair, 38 F.4th 341 (3d Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “1 The term ‘legislative rule’ generally refers to an agency rule promulgated through formal or informal (notice-and- comment) rulemaking, although certain subject-matter exceptions exist.”
United States v. Earl Thomas Anderson, 942 F.2d 606 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7 (citation omitted). In this guideline, the Commission divided its commentary into three types: commentary that interprets a particular guideline, commentary that suggests circumstances warranting departure, and commentary that provides background information…”
United States v. Bobby Glen Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 5× “In Brigman , we considered U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7, which directs courts to treat the commentary to the guidelines “as the legal equivalent of a policy statement.”
United States v. Robert William Jones, United States of Am. v. Donald Eugene Johnson, 907 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “The Guidelines state that the Commentary, which includes the Application Notes, should be “treated as the legal equivalent of a policy statement,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7, “much like legislative history or other legal material that helps determine the intent of a drafter,” U.”
Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996). · cites it 2× “The Application Notes (which are "the legal equivalent of a policy statement," USSG § 1B1.7) are where the Sentencing Commission has dealt with sentences below statutory minimums.”
United States v. Ronald Leland Kelley, United States of Am. v. Rodney Ray Jiruska, 956 F.2d 748 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “They point to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7 in which the Commission states: “As with a 'policy statement, such commentary may provide guidance in assessing the reasonableness of any departure from the guidelines” (emphasis added).”
United States v. Howard Halverson, 897 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2018). “" U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7 (2016). And we have previously held that district courts should follow the contemporary versions of the Guidelines rather than older cases that interpreted prior versions of the Guidelines.”
United States v. Jose Antonio Gonzalez-Murillo, 852 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “36, 38 (1993); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7. 7 In Hippolyte, Hippolyte argued that a retroactive guideline amendment resulted in a lower applicable guideline range for him, making him eligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2), even though the alleged resulting guideline range…”
United States v. Eliot S. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7 (emphases added). We deem the at-issue commentary here to fall within the third category of purposes that commentaries may serve, as the commentary here provides background information regarding the Enhancement.”
Show all 140 citing cases →
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.