U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3

Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)       Base Offense Level:  9

(b)      Specific Offense Characteristic

(1)       If the greater of the amount obtained or demanded (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount.

(c)       Cross References

(1)       If the offense involved extortion under color of official right, apply §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud Involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions).

(2)       If the offense involved extortion by force or threat of injury or serious damage, apply §2B3.2 (Extortion by Force or Threat of Injury or Serious Damage).

 

Commentary

Statutory Provisions18 U.S.C. §§ 873, 875–877, 1951. For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).

Application Note:

1.      This section applies only to blackmail and similar forms of extortion where there clearly is no threat of violence to person or property. "Blackmail" (18 U.S.C. § 873) is defined as a threat to disclose a violation of United States law unless money or some other item of value is given.

Background:  Under 18 U.S.C. § 873, the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for blackmail is one year. Extortionate threats to injure a reputation, or other threats that are less serious than those covered by §2B3.2, may also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 875–877, which carry higher maximum sentences.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 114); November 1, 1993 (amendment 479); November 1, 2001 (amendment 617); November 1, 2005 (amendment 679); November 1, 2015 (amendment 791).

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

4.      COMMERCIAL BRIBERY AND KICKBACKS


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007).
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). · cites it 33× “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “The United States cross-appeals both sentences, claiming that the district court erred by: (1) using the Blackmail Sentencing Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, rather than the Extortion Sentencing Guideline, U.”
United States v. Benjamin Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “If the amount obtained or demanded exceeds $550,000, but is $1,500,000 or less, a fourteen-level increase applies.”
United States v. Askari (Part II), 140 F.3d 536 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “2, and "Blackmail' and Similar Forms of Extortion,” USSG § 2B3.3. The latter applies "only to blackmail and similar forms of extortion where there clearly is no threat of violence to person or properly.”
United States v. Antonio Ruben Inigo, United States of Am. v. Raul Armando Giordano, United States of Am. v. Bruno Skerianz, 925 F.2d 641 (3rd Cir. 1991). “1(b)(2)) with U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(b)(l) (applying U.S.S.G.”
United States v. Sienky Lallemand, 989 F.2d 936 (7th Cir. 1993). “U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(a). After the base offense level is determined, adjustments are made for the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors.”
United States v. Justin Lee Howard, 759 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See USSG § 2B3.3 (base offense level increased “by the number of levels from the table in § 2B1.”
United States v. Terrence Penn, 966 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “2, and contends that the court should have sentenced him under the guideline for blackmail, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3. We affirm. *56 In January and February 1990, Terrence Penn, using the alias Raymond Fields, made several telephone calls to Carmine Elmore, the owner and operator of a…”
United States v. Henry Mathis, 186 F. App'x 971 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “2, rather than the guidelines for blackmail and similar forms of extortion under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3. Fifth, Mathis argues that the district court erred by applying the obstruction of justice enhancement under U.”
United States v. Bedri Kulla, 434 F. App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “” USSG § 2B3.3, comment. (n.l); accord 18 U.”
United States v. Michael A. Casciano, 124 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1997). “*115 Casciano nonetheless asserts that the most analogous guideline for his conduct is U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion, which carries a lower base offense level.”
United States v. Aikens, 358 F. Supp. 2d 433 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “Specifically, the sentencing court added, two levels to petitioner’s base offense level because a person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense (U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(4)(B)); two levels because the loss was between $50,000 and $250,000 (U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(4)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Aikens, 358 F. Supp. 2d 433 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “Specifically, the sentencing court added, two levels to petitioner’s base offense level because a person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense (U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(4)(B)); two levels because the loss was between $50,000 and $250,000 (U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(a) — 6 cases
United States v. Benjamin Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the amount obtained or demanded exceeds $550,000, but is $1,500,000 or less, a fourteen-level increase applies.”
United States v. Sienky Lallemand, 989 F.2d 936 (7th Cir. 1993). “U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(a). After the base offense level is determined, adjustments are made for the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors.”
United States v. Bedri Kulla, 434 F. App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2011). “” USSG § 2B3.3, comment. (n.l); accord 18 U.”
United States v. Woodworth, 5 F. Supp. 2d 644 (N.D. Ind. 1998).
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(b) — 1 case
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(b)(1) — 4 cases
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
United States v. Benjamin Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the amount obtained or demanded exceeds $550,000, but is $1,500,000 or less, a fourteen-level increase applies.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(b)(l) — 2 cases
United States v. Antonio Ruben Inigo, United States of Am. v. Raul Armando Giordano, United States of Am. v. Bruno Skerianz, 925 F.2d 641 (3rd Cir. 1991). “1(b)(2)) with U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3(b)(l) (applying U.S.S.G.”
United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2011). “The United States cross-appeals both sentences, claiming that the district court erred by: (1) using the Blackmail Sentencing Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, rather than the Extortion Sentencing Guideline, U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(c)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(c)(2) — 4 cases
United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2011). “The United States cross-appeals both sentences, claiming that the district court erred by: (1) using the Blackmail Sentencing Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, rather than the Extortion Sentencing Guideline, U.”
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
United States v. Westmoreland, 72 F. App'x 29 (4th Cir. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §2B3.3(e)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Vigil, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007). “2 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2B3.3, the section titled “Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion.”
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.