U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2

Stalking or Domestic Violence

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Base Offense Level: 18

(b) Specific Offense Characteristic

(1) If the offense involved one of the following aggravating factors: (A) the violation of a court protection order; (B) bodily injury; (C) strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate; (D) possession, or threatened use, of a dangerous weapon; or (E) a pattern of activity involving stalking, threatening, harassing, or assaulting the same victim, increase by 2 levels. If the offense involved more than one of subdivisions (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E), increase by 4 levels.

(1) If the offense involved the commission of another criminal offense, apply the offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A (Offenses Against the Person) most applicable to that other criminal offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.

Commentary

Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261–2262.

Application Notes:

1. For purposes of this guideline:

"Bodily injury" and "dangerous weapon" are defined in the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions).

"Pattern of activity involving stalking, threatening, harassing, or assaulting the same victim" means any combination of two or more separate instances of stalking, threatening, harassing, or assaulting the same victim, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction. For example, a single instance of stalking accompanied by a separate instance of threatening, harassing, or assaulting the same victim constitutes a pattern of activity for purposes of this guideline.

"Stalking" means conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.

"Strangling" and "suffocating" have the meaning given those terms in 18 U.S.C. § 113.

2. Subsection (b)(1) provides for a two-level or four-level enhancement based on the degree to which the offense involved aggravating factors listed in that subsection. If the offense involved aggravating factors more serious than the factors listed in subsection (b)(1), the cross reference in subsection (c) most likely will apply, if the resulting offense level is greater, because the more serious conduct will be covered by another offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A. For example, §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault) most likely would apply pursuant to subsection (c) if the offense involved assaultive conduct in which injury more serious than bodily injury occurred or if a dangerous weapon was used rather than merely possessed.

3. In determining whether subsection (b)(1)(E) applies, the court shall consider, under the totality of the circumstances, any conduct that occurred prior to or during the offense; however, conduct that occurred prior to the offense must be substantially and directly connected to the offense. For example, if a defendant engaged in several acts of stalking the same victim over a period of years (including acts that occurred prior to the offense), then for purposes of determining whether subsection (b)(1)(E) applies, the court shall look to the totality of the circumstances, considering only those prior acts of stalking the victim that have a substantial and direct connection to the offense.

Prior convictions taken into account under subsection (b)(1)(E) are also counted for purposes of determining criminal history points pursuant to Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal History).

4. For purposes of Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts), multiple counts involving stalking, threatening, or harassing the same victim are grouped together (and with counts of other offenses involving the same victim that are covered by this guideline) under §3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts). For example, if the defendant is convicted of two counts of stalking the defendant's ex-spouse under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and one count of interstate domestic violence involving an assault of the ex-spouse under 18 U.S.C. § 2261, the stalking counts would be grouped together with the interstate domestic violence count. This grouping procedure avoids unwarranted "double counting" with the enhancement in subsection (b)(1)(E) (for multiple acts of stalking, threatening, harassing, or assaulting the same victim) and recognizes that the stalking and interstate domestic violence counts are sufficiently related to warrant grouping.

Multiple counts that are cross referenced to another offense guideline pursuant to subsection (c) are to be grouped together if §3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts) would require grouping of those counts under that offense guideline. Similarly, multiple counts cross referenced pursuant to subsection (c) are not to be grouped together if §3D1.2 would preclude grouping of the counts under that offense guideline. For example, if the defendant is convicted of multiple counts of threatening an ex-spouse in violation of a court protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262 and the counts are cross referenced to §2A6.1 (Threatening or Harassing Communications), the counts would group together because Application Note 3 of §2A6.1 specifically requires grouping. In contrast, if the defendant is convicted of multiple counts of assaulting the ex-spouse in violation of a court protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262 and the counts are cross referenced to §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault), the counts probably would not group together inasmuch as §3D1.2(d) specifically precludes grouping of counts covered by §2A2.2 and no other provision of §3D1.2 would likely apply to require grouping.

Multiple counts involving different victims are not to be grouped under §3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts).

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1997 (amendment 549). Amended effective November 1, 2001 (amendment 616); November 1, 2009 (amendment 737); November 1, 2014 (amendment 781); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).

PART B – BASIC ECONOMIC OFFENSES

1. THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AND OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD OR DECEIT

Introductory Commentary

These sections address basic forms of property offenses: theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting (other than offenses involving altered or counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States), insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. (Arson is dealt with separately in Chapter Two, Part K (Offenses Involving Public Safety)). These guidelines apply to offenses prosecuted under a wide variety of federal statutes, as well as offenses that arise under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 303); November 1, 2001 (amendment 617).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: United States v. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 9× “” USSG § 2A6.2. As we have just noted, the pattern of activity in question consisted of two incidents in which Robinson assaulted his wife, and more than one instance in which he threatened her.”

United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “In this case, the sentencing court determined that the appellant’s conduct fell, in pertinent part, within the purview of USSG § 2A6.2 (“Stalking or Domestic Violence”).”

United States v. Fiume, 708 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “Neither the guideline provision about which the defendant complains, USSG § 2A6.2, nor its associated commentary contains any textual proscription against the use of a two-level upward adjustment under § 2A6.”

United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Initially, the appellant argues that the sentencing court erred in finding that the crimes of conviction involved the threatened use of a dangerous weapon (a finding that triggered a two-level upward adjustment, see USSG § 2A6.2(b)(l)(C)). This argument trenches on the…”

United States v. Donald Lynn Baggett, 342 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “1 At sentencing, the district court determined that under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2, entitled “Stalking or Domestic Violence,” a cross-reference was appropriate as directed under subpart (c)(1).”

United States v. Yilmaz, 910 F.3d 686 (2d Cir. 2018). “" U.S.S.G. §§ 2A6.2(a), (b)(1)(D)-(E). If the offense involved more than one of the five specified aggravating factors, the district court may increase by four levels.”

United States v. Douglas, 646 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “2007) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming the district court’s application of the cross-reference to kidnapping because the offense of conviction involved the commission of kidnapping and the resulting offense level was higher than the domestic violence guideline).”

United States v. Derek Duane Page, 167 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2(a). Two levels are added if one of several factors is present, including infliction of bodily injury or possession or threatened use of a dangerous weapon; four levels are added if more than one of these factors are present.”

United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014). “See U.S.S.G. §§ 2A6.2(a), 3E1.1. It also added a four-level enhancement because Sayer’s offense involved two “aggravating factors” under § 2A6.”

United States v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2 (directing that the base offense level be raised by two if the offense involved, inter alia, "stalking, threatening, harassing or assaulting the same victim”).”

United States v. Matthew Evans Dowd, 417 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2005). “U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2. In this case, the other offense was sexual abuse, which carries a sentence that is 9 levels higher than the base penalty for the domestic violence statute.”

United States v. Lee, 790 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015). “U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2(b)(l) (2013). The commentary to the guidelines indicates that a pattern of activity involves, “under the totality of the *19 circumstances, any conduct that occurred prior to or during the offense; however, conduct that occurred prior to the offense must be…”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(a) — 8 cases

United States v. Fiume, 708 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2013). “Neither the guideline provision about which the defendant complains, USSG § 2A6.2, nor its associated commentary contains any textual proscription against the use of a two-level upward adjustment under § 2A6.”

United States v. Derek Duane Page, 167 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 1999). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2(a). Two levels are added if one of several factors is present, including infliction of bodily injury or possession or threatened use of a dangerous weapon; four levels are added if more than one of these factors are present.”

United States v. Nicolella, 211 F. App'x 12 (1st Cir. 2007).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Meyer (9th Cir. 2024).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(1) — 7 cases

United States v. Alexandre Ovadia (11th Cir. 2025).

United States v. Adrian Seymore (9th Cir. 2018).

United States v. Cain (1st Cir. 2019).

United States v. Michael Hagar (6th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Bracken (10th Cir. 2025).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(1)(A) — 1 case

United States v. Thompson (2d Cir. 2019).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(1)(B) — 1 case

United States v. Robinson, 370 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Me. 2005).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(1)(D) — 1 case

United States v. Kaleb Cole (9th Cir. 2023).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(l) — 2 cases

United States v. Robinson, 370 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Me. 2005).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(l)(A) — 3 cases

United States v. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2005). “” USSG § 2A6.2. As we have just noted, the pattern of activity in question consisted of two incidents in which Robinson assaulted his wife, and more than one instance in which he threatened her.”

United States v. Robinson, 370 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Me. 2005).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(l)(C) — 2 cases

United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011). “Initially, the appellant argues that the sentencing court erred in finding that the crimes of conviction involved the threatened use of a dangerous weapon (a finding that triggered a two-level upward adjustment, see USSG § 2A6.2(b)(l)(C)). This argument trenches on the…”

United States v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001). “See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2 (directing that the base offense level be raised by two if the offense involved, inter alia, "stalking, threatening, harassing or assaulting the same victim”).”

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(b)(l)(D) — 4 cases

United States v. Robinson, 370 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Me. 2005).

United States v. Veal, 138 F. App'x 902 (9th Cir. 2005).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(c) — 2 cases

United States v. Douglas, 646 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2011). “2007) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming the district court’s application of the cross-reference to kidnapping because the offense of conviction involved the commission of kidnapping and the resulting offense level was higher than the domestic violence guideline).”

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(c)(1) — 3 cases

United States v. Nicolella, 211 F. App'x 12 (1st Cir. 2007).

United States v. Christopher Buonocore (11th Cir. 2024).

United States v. Baggett (6th Cir. 2003).

— U.S.S.G. §2A6.2(c)(l) — 2 cases

United States v. Donald Lynn Baggett, 342 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2003). “1 At sentencing, the district court determined that under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2, entitled “Stalking or Domestic Violence,” a cross-reference was appropriate as directed under subpart (c)(1).”

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.