Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 2 c

U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5

Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)      Base Offense Level: 33

(b)      Specific Offense Characteristic

(1)       If the offense involved the offer or the receipt of anything of pecuniary value for undertaking the murder, increase by 4 levels.

(c)       Cross References

(1)       If the offense resulted in the death of a victim, apply §2A1.1 (First Degree Murder).

(2)       If the offense resulted in an attempted murder or assault with intent to commit murder, apply §2A2.1 (Assault with Intent to Commit Murder; Attempted Murder).

 

Commentary

Statutory Provisions:  18 U.S.C. §§ 351(d), 371, 373, 1117, 1751(d).

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 311).  Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 663).

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

2.      ASSAULT


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: United States v. Eugene Temkin, 797 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Eugene Temkin, 797 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 19× “However, Temkin’s correct offense level is 37 under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5, which governs the sentencing range for conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder.”
United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “11 (identifying as examples the increase of the offense level for conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder if the offense results in death, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(c)(1), and the increase of the offense level for aggravated assault based on victim's injuries, Id.”
United States v. Summers, 506 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D.N.M. 2007). · cites it 19× “4 or U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 to the crime of Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Odeh, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “The offense level of 66 comprised a base offense level of 43 — as determined by U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(c)(l), 46 which contains a cross-reference to § 2A1.”
United States v. John Wayne Cardwell, United States of Am. v. Leo Hinson, 433 F.3d 378 (4th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Cardwell, like Hinson, received a four-level enhancement based on judge-found facts under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5. With this enhancement, his range was 121-151 months imprisonment.”
United States v. Montana Barronette, 46 F.4th 177 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “He brings three challenges to his sentence: (1) the district court procedurally erred by enhancing his offense levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(b)(1); (2) the district court erred in finding Floyd to be a career offender pursuant to U.”
United States v. Ruben Porraz, 943 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “Based on the admissions in the plea declaration, the probation office concluded that U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5—the guideline for conspira- cy to commit murder—governed Porraz’s underlying con- duct.”
United States v. Alexis Simon, 858 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Therefore, when some other section of the Guidelines expressly covers a specific inchoate offense—for instance, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5, “Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder”—the sentencing court leaves the default § 2X1.”
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 14× “3 At stake was *741 Amendment 311 (effective November 1, 1990) which, inter alia, added USSG § 2A1.5 (“Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder”) to the Homicide subpart of Chapter 2.”
United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5. Lastly, we have held that a district court may reduce a sentence to account for the harsh conditions of pretrial confinement, United States v.”
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 3× “The applicable offense guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 (Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder); however, because Defendant’s offense resulted in an attempted murder, Section 2A2.”
United States v. Mario Martinez, United States of Am. v. Steven Cox, A/K/A Bobby, 136 F.3d 972 (4th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Both defendants also argue that the district court erred in sentencing them under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5), for attempting or conspiring to commit murder, when the indictment gener-icaUy charged them with conspiracy to commit a crime of violence.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(a) — 17 cases
United States v. Summers, 506 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D.N.M. 2007). “4 or U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 to the crime of Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Mario Martinez, United States of Am. v. Steven Cox, A/K/A Bobby, 136 F.3d 972 (4th Cir. 1998). “Both defendants also argue that the district court erred in sentencing them under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5), for attempting or conspiring to commit murder, when the indictment gener-icaUy charged them with conspiracy to commit a crime of violence.”
United States v. Matthew Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Ruben Porraz, 943 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2019). “Based on the admissions in the plea declaration, the probation office concluded that U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5—the guideline for conspira- cy to commit murder—governed Porraz’s underlying con- duct.”
United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “The applicable offense guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 (Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder); however, because Defendant’s offense resulted in an attempted murder, Section 2A2.”
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(a)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Antonio Quevedo, 633 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2016).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(b) — 4 cases
United States v. Carter, 19 F.4th 520 (1st Cir. 2021).
United States v. Eduardo Rios Velasquez, 81 F.4th 583 (6th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Hayman (10th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Francis, 131 F.3d 1452 (11th Cir. 1997).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(b)(1) — 12 cases
United States v. Montana Barronette, 46 F.4th 177 (4th Cir. 2022). “He brings three challenges to his sentence: (1) the district court procedurally erred by enhancing his offense levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(b)(1); (2) the district court erred in finding Floyd to be a career offender pursuant to U.”
United States v. Euripides Caguana, 884 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Timothy Floyd (4th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Terrell Sivells (4th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Taurus Tillman (4th Cir. 2022).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(b)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Summers, 506 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D.N.M. 2007). “4 or U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 to the crime of Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Lee Smith, 755 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Francis, 131 F.3d 1452 (11th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Gary Williams, 647 F. App'x 144 (3rd Cir. 2016).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(c) — 3 cases
United States v. Zenon Grzegorczyk, 800 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Davis, 205 F. App'x 28 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Taboada v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(c)(1) — 6 cases
United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009). “11 (identifying as examples the increase of the offense level for conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder if the offense results in death, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(c)(1), and the increase of the offense level for aggravated assault based on victim's injuries, Id.”
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009). “3 At stake was *741 Amendment 311 (effective November 1, 1990) which, inter alia, added USSG § 2A1.5 (“Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder”) to the Homicide subpart of Chapter 2.”
United States v. Christopher Rishell (6th Cir. 2020).
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies (2d Cir. 2008).
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(c)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “The applicable offense guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 (Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder); however, because Defendant’s offense resulted in an attempted murder, Section 2A2.”
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(c)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Odeh, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008). “The offense level of 66 comprised a base offense level of 43 — as determined by U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(c)(l), 46 which contains a cross-reference to § 2A1.”
United States v. Alan Masters & James D. Keating, 978 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Aller, 384 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2010).
United States v. Bailey, 892 F. Supp. 997 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(e)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009). “3 At stake was *741 Amendment 311 (effective November 1, 1990) which, inter alia, added USSG § 2A1.5 (“Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder”) to the Homicide subpart of Chapter 2.”
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— U.S.S.G. §2A1.5(e)(l) — 2 cases
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009). “3 At stake was *741 Amendment 311 (effective November 1, 1990) which, inter alia, added USSG § 2A1.5 (“Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder”) to the Homicide subpart of Chapter 2.”
United States v. Grecco, 342 F. App'x 739 (3rd Cir. 2009).
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.