U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4
Obstructing or Impeding Officers
(a) Base Offense Level: 10
(b) Specific Offense Characteristics
(1) If (A) the offense involved physical contact; or (B) a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed and its use was threatened, increase by 3 levels.
(2) If the victim sustained bodily injury, increase by 2 levels.
(c) Cross Reference
(1) If the conduct constituted aggravated assault, apply §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault).
Commentary
Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 40A, 111, 1501, 1502, 2237(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), 3056(d). For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).Application Notes:
1. Definitions.—For purposes of this guideline, "bodily injury", "dangerous weapon", and "firearm" have the meaning given those terms in Application Note 1 of the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions). 2. Application of Certain Chapter Three Adjustments.—The base offense level incorporates the fact that the victim was a governmental officer performing official duties. Therefore, do not apply §3A1.2 (Official Victim) unless, pursuant to subsection (c), the offense level is determined under §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault). Conversely, the base offense level does not incorporate the possibility that the defendant may create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement official (although an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 758 for fleeing or evading a law enforcement checkpoint at high speed will often, but not always, involve the creation of that risk). If the defendant creates that risk and no higher guideline adjustment is applicable for the conduct creating the risk, apply §3C1.2 (Reckless Endangerment During Flight).Historical Note: Effective October 15, 1988 (amendment 64). Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 89 and 90); November 1, 1992 (amendment 443); November 1, 1997 (amendment 550); November 1, 2004 (amendment 663); November 1, 2005 (amendment 679); November 1, 2007 (amendment 699); November 1, 2023 (amendment 815); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
* * * * *
3. CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE AND OFFENSES RELATED TO REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 2007 (amendment 701).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: United States v. William Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 2021).
United States v. William Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 2021). “See USSG § 2A2.4, comment., n.1; USSG § 2D1.1, comment.”
United States v. John Nassif, 97 F.4th 968 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “” U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4. Based on a finding that Nassif gave false testimony at trial, the court then applied a two-point sentencing enhancement for “obstructing or impeding the administration of justice.”
United States v. Darlene Marie Beckner, 983 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1993). “As indicated by Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, the definition of "deadly weapon” is found in Application Note 1(d) to U.”
United States v. Albert Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992). “2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), rather than as “Obstructing or Impeding Officers” while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon.”
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). “” See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 (capitalization omitted); see also id.”
United States v. Davila-Bonilla, 968 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). “The commentaries to USSG § 2A2.4 (pertaining to instructing or impeding an officer) and § 2H3.”
United States v. Jones, 254 F. App'x 711 (10th Cir. 2007). “After hearing counsels’ final arguments on the guideline calculations, the court ruled the government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones intended to use the baton as a deadly weapon and therefore, the court would apply USSG §2A2.4, not the aggravated…”
United States v. Richard Lawlor, 168 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1999). “Probation Office recommended that the court apply Sentencing Guideline § 2A2.4 (“Obstructing or Impeding Officers”), instead of § 2A2.”
United States v. Ronald FULBRIGHT, 105 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1997). “Fulbright argues that the court should have used U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 — the guideline dealing with obstructing or impeding federal officers — which would have resulted in a base offense level of 6.”
United States v. David J. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179 (6th Cir. 2000). “Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or…”
United States v. Allen L. Streit, 962 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1992). “If the Sentencing Commission had provided for a two-level bodily injury adjustment in U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 (Obstructing or Impeding Officers) — the section under which Streit was sentenced— then the court could have added a two-level increase for each of Streit’s assault convictions.”
United States v. Rakes, 510 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2007). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4. Accordingly, when compared against the indictment itself, 2A6.”
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(a): 15 cases
United States v. Jones, 254 F. App'x 711 (10th Cir. 2007). “After hearing counsels’ final arguments on the guideline calculations, the court ruled the government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones intended to use the baton as a deadly weapon and therefore, the court would apply USSG §2A2.4, not the aggravated…”
United States v. Darlene Marie Beckner, 983 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1993). “As indicated by Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, the definition of "deadly weapon” is found in Application Note 1(d) to U.”
United States v. Jose Luis GARCIA-CAMACHO, 122 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Mendoza-Gomez, 69 F.4th 273 (5th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Juan Melgar-Galvez, 161 F.3d 1122 (7th Cir. 1998).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b): 4 cases
United States v. Albert Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992). “2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), rather than as “Obstructing or Impeding Officers” while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon.”
United States v. Matthew Blair, No. 17-10282 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2018).
United States v. Yoder, No. 2021-0505 (D.D.C. July 5, 2024).
United States v. Maul, David C., 205 F. App'x 456 (7th Cir. 2006).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(1): 5 cases
United States v. Francis E. Wollenzien, 972 F.2d 890 (8th Cir. 1992).
United States v. McKeiver, 982 F. Supp. 842 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
United States v. Marlon Portillo-Palencia, 837 F. App'x 286 (5th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Warren, No. 95-5382 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 1996).
United States v. Lyman Redroad, No. 96-2644 (8th Cir. Oct. 9, 1996).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(1)(A): 1 case
United States v. Walters, 253 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (E.D. Wis. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(1)(B): 2 cases
United States v. William Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 2021). “See USSG § 2A2.4, comment., n.1; USSG § 2D1.1, comment.”
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). “” See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 (capitalization omitted); see also id.”
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(2): 9 cases
United States v. Jade LaRoche, 83 F.4th 682 (8th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Steele, 550 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Mendoza-Gomez, 69 F.4th 273 (5th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Carlos Martinez-Alvarado, 422 F. App'x 356 (5th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Corey James Hight, 695 F. App'x 532 (11th Cir. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(l): 20 cases
United States v. Darlene Marie Beckner, 983 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1993). “As indicated by Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, the definition of "deadly weapon” is found in Application Note 1(d) to U.”
United States v. Allen L. Streit, 962 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1992). “If the Sentencing Commission had provided for a two-level bodily injury adjustment in U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 (Obstructing or Impeding Officers) — the section under which Streit was sentenced— then the court could have added a two-level increase for each of Streit’s assault convictions.”
United States v. Richard Lawlor, 168 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1999). “Probation Office recommended that the court apply Sentencing Guideline § 2A2.4 (“Obstructing or Impeding Officers”), instead of § 2A2.”
United States v. Albert Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992). “2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), rather than as “Obstructing or Impeding Officers” while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon.”
United States v. Gerald Lynn Campbell, 259 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2001).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(l)(A): 2 cases
United States v. Beltran-Higuera, 642 F. App'x 780 (9th Cir. 2016).
United States v. John, 259 F. App'x 379 (2d Cir. 2008).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(l)(B): 2 cases
United States v. Gerhard, 615 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Lazaro Mora Gutierrez, 688 F. App'x 654 (11th Cir. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(b)(l)(a): 1 case
United States v. Shelton, 431 F. Supp. 2d 675 (E.D. Tex. 2006).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(c): 5 cases
United States v. Albert Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992). “2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), rather than as “Obstructing or Impeding Officers” while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon.”
United States v. Duncan, 99 F. App'x 196 (10th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Diego Nunez-Granados, 546 F. App'x 483 (5th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Jorge Gomez-Vega, 471 F. App'x 327 (5th Cir. 2012).
United States v. McKeiver, 982 F. Supp. 842 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(c)(1): 6 cases
United States v. Rendsland, 648 F. App'x 104 (2d Cir. 2016).
United States v. Thomas M. Jackson, Jr., No. 17-10392 (11th Cir. Mar. 23, 2018).
United States v. Richie Wheeler, No. 20-1262 (3d Cir. Oct. 8, 2020).
United States v. Richie Wheeler, No. 20-1262 (3d Cir. Nov. 20, 2020).
United States v. Gonzalez-Agundis, No. 25-40057 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(c)(l): 11 cases
United States v. Troy Clayton Kleinebreil, 966 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Albert Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992). “2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), rather than as “Obstructing or Impeding Officers” while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon.”
United States v. Melvin Peter Kings, 981 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Ernest Lee Jennings, 991 F.2d 725 (11th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Damian Valdez-Torres, 108 F.3d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
U.S.S.G. §2A2.4(e)(l): 1 case
United States v. Steven Bruce Smith, 196 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 1999).
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.