U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3
Conflict of Interest; Payment or Receipt of Unauthorized Compensation
(a) Base Offense Level: 6
(b) Specific Offense Characteristic
(1) If the offense involved actual or planned harm to the government, increase by 4 levels.
(c) Cross Reference
(1) If the offense involved a bribe or gratuity, 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) or §2C1.2 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Gratuity), as appropriate, if the resulting offense level is greater than the offense level determined above.
Commentary
Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 1909; 40 U.S.C. § 14309(a), (b). For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).Application Note:
1. Abuse of Position of Trust.—Do not apply the adjustment in §3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill).Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1995 (amendment 534); November 1, 2001 (amendment 619); November 1, 2003 (amendment 661); November 1, 2005 (amendment 679).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: United States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003). “3 At sentencing, Fisher argued that the appropriate guideline to establish her base offense level was U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3, the guideline pertaining to conflicts of interest, rather than U.”
United States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555 (1st Cir. 1996). “See U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3. We begin by analyzing the claim that the facts of this case permit downward departure on the basis of aberrant behavior and discuss the two remaining bases for appeal in turn.”
United States v. Coker, 514 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008). “Based on this conclusion, the court applied the cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (governing Coker’s crime of conviction) to U.”
United States v. Smith, Arnett C., 267 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “Compare U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (conflicts) with § 2C1.2 (gratuities).”
United States v. John Baird, 109 F.3d 856 (3rd Cir. 1997). “See 1994 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3. Under § 2C1.3, the base offense level for the criminal, financial and nonfinancial conflict of interest by federal officials is 6.”
United States v. Loren George Jennings, 487 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2007). “Jennings contends that the district court should have applied U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3, “Conflict of Interest; Payment or Receipt of Unauthorized Compensation,” rather than § 2C1.”
United States v. Smith, 374 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “The court noted that the base offense level for that offense was six, see 2002 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3, and reached a total offense level of twelve by adding most of the same enhancements it had applied in the initial sentencing: two levels for Smith’s perjury at trial, two levels…”
United States v. Olson (D.D.C. 2023). “§ 207 and the corresponding guideline is USSG § 2C1.3. See USSG App. A. The base level for this offense is also six.”
United States v. Coker (6th Cir. 2008). “Based on this conclusion, the court applied the cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (governing Coker’s crime of conviction) to U.”
United States v. Smith, Arnett, 401 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “The court noted that the base offense level for that offense was six, see 2002 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3, and reached a total offense level of twelve by adding most of the same enhancements it had applied in the initial sentencing: two levels for Smith’s perjury at trial, two levels…”
United States v. Loren Jennings (8th Cir. 2007). “Jennings contends that the district court should have applied U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3, “Conflict of Interest; Payment or Receipt of Unauthorized Compensation,” rather than § 2C1.”
United States v. Baird (3rd Cir. 1997). “See 1994 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3. Under § 2C1.3, the base offense level for the criminal, financial and non- financial conflict of interest by federal officials is 6.”
— U.S.S.G. §2C1.3(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Coker, 514 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008). “Based on this conclusion, the court applied the cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (governing Coker’s crime of conviction) to U.”
United States v. Olson (D.D.C. 2023). “§ 207 and the corresponding guideline is USSG § 2C1.3. See USSG App. A. The base level for this offense is also six.”
United States v. Coker (6th Cir. 2008). “Based on this conclusion, the court applied the cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (governing Coker’s crime of conviction) to U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2C1.3(c) — 1 case
United States v. Olson (D.D.C. 2023). “§ 207 and the corresponding guideline is USSG § 2C1.3. See USSG App. A. The base level for this offense is also six.”
— U.S.S.G. §2C1.3(c)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Olson (D.D.C. 2023). “§ 207 and the corresponding guideline is USSG § 2C1.3. See USSG App. A. The base level for this offense is also six.”
United States v. Coker (6th Cir. 2008). “Based on this conclusion, the court applied the cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2C1.3 (governing Coker’s crime of conviction) to U.”
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.