U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1
First Degree Murder
(a) Base Offense Level: 43
Commentary
Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1841(a)(2)(C), 1992(a)(7), 2113(e), 2118(c)(2), 2199, 2282A, 2291, 2332b(a)(1), 2340A; 21 U.S.C. § 848(e). For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).Application Notes:
1. Applicability of Guideline.—This guideline applies in cases of premeditated killing. This guideline also applies when death results from the commission of certain felonies. For example, this guideline may be applied as a result of a cross reference (e.g., a kidnapping in which death occurs, see §2A4.1(c)(1)), or in cases in which the offense level of a guideline is calculated using the underlying crime (e.g., murder in aid of racketeering, see §2E1.3(a)(2)). 2. Offenses Involving Premeditated Killing.—In the case of premeditated killing, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence if a sentence of death is not imposed. If a mandatory statutory term of life imprisonment applies, a lesser term of imprisonment is permissible only in cases in which the government files a motion pertaining to the defendant’s substantial assistance, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). 3. Applicability of Guideline When Death Sentence Not Imposed.—If the defendant is sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq. or 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), a sentence of death may be imposed under the specific provisions contained in that statute. This guideline applies when a sentence of death is not imposed under those specific provisions.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 82); November 1, 1990 (amendment 310); November 1, 1993 (amendment 476); November 1, 2002 (amendment 637); November 1, 2004 (amendment 663); November 1, 2006 (amendment 685); November 1, 2007 (amendments 699 and 700); November 1, 2010 (amendment 746); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 367
cases (63 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001).
United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001). “The parties stipulated, for federal sentencing purposes, to a BOL of 43 (a figure derived by cross-reference to the first-degree murder guideline, USSG § 2A1.1). Finally, the appellant waived her right to appeal any sentence imposed by the district court.”
United States v. Barrett, 102 F.4th 60 (2d Cir. 2024). “845 (2022), Hobbs Act robbery cannot be identified as a categorical crime of violence; (3) his 50-year prison sentence is procedurally unreasonable based on the district court’s (a) erroneous application of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range, and (b)…”
United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999). “Nichols Under 1994 U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 — the Guideline for First-Degree Murder — Rather Than 1994 U.”
United States v. Leobardo Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2020). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. Barraza’s counsel conceded that “that is the accurate guideline.”
United States v. Sanchez, 354 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2004). “1 The court arrived at his offense level by applying the first degree murder cross-reference, USSG §§ 2A1.1, 2B3.1(c); granting a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, id.”
United States v. Amy Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2018). “" U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 cmt. n.1. This increased the defendants' Guidelines range.”
United States v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2006). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. 4 The court then departed downward to an offense level of 33 based upon Hansen’s state of mind.”
United States v. Denny R. Gullett, 75 F.3d 941 (4th Cir. 1996). “4(c)(l) directs the sentencing court to apply the “most analogous” guideline offense from Chapter Two, Part A: If death resulted, or the offense was intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, apply the most analogous guideline from Chapter Two, Part A (Offenses Against…”
United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, App. Note 2(A) (“In the case of premeditated killing, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence if a sentence of death is not imposed.”
United States v. Marshaun Thomas, 389 F.3d 424 (3rd Cir. 2004). “2d 403 (2004), precludes the application of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 to his case. Second, he complains that his Fed.”
United States v. Garron Briggs, 820 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2016). “§ 1111 , the district court should apply USSG § 2A1.1 if the resulting offense level is greater than the defendant’s offense level under § 2D1.”
United States v. Lei Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008). “11 Although that Guideline recommends a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the district court departed downward and sentenced Shi to 36 years.”
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.1(A) — 1 case
United States v. Ortiz-Soto (1st Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.1(a) — 35 cases
United States v. Leobardo Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2020). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. Barraza’s counsel conceded that “that is the accurate guideline.”
United States v. Bryan Bostick, 791 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
United States v. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2020).
United States v. Martin Hunt, 99 F.4th 161 (4th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Taylor, 907 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir. 2018).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.1(a)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Lei Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008). “11 Although that Guideline recommends a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the district court departed downward and sentenced Shi to 36 years.”
United States v. Shi (9th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.1(b)(3)(E) — 1 case
United States v. Brian Mikkelson (11th Cir. 2025).
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.