U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5

Continuing Criminal Enterprise; Attempt or Conspiracy

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the greater):

(1) 4 plus the offense level from §2D1.1 applicable to the underlying offense; or

(2) 38.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Inapplicability of Chapter Three Adjustment.—Do not apply any adjustment from Chapter Three, Part B (Role in the Offense).

2. "Continuing Series of Violations".—Under 21 U.S.C. § 848, certain conduct for which the defendant has previously been sentenced may be charged as part of the instant offense to establish a "continuing series of violations." A sentence resulting from a conviction sustained prior to the last overt act of the instant offense is to be considered a prior sentence under §4A1.2(a)(1) and not part of the instant offense.

3. Multiple Counts.—Violations of 21 U.S.C. § 848 will be grouped with other drug offenses for the purpose of applying Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts).

Background: Because a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848 establishes that a defendant controlled and exercised authority over one of the most serious types of ongoing criminal activity, this guideline provides a minimum base offense level of 38. An adjustment from Chapter Three, Part B is not authorized because the offense level of this guideline already reflects an adjustment for role in the offense.

Section 848 of title 21, United States Code, provides a 20-year minimum mandatory penalty for the first conviction, a 30-year minimum mandatory penalty for a second conviction, and a mandatory life sentence for principal administrators of extremely large enterprises. If the application of the guidelines results in a sentence below the minimum sentence required by statute, the statutory minimum shall be the guideline sentence. See §5G1.1(b).

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective October 15, 1988 (amendment 66); November 1, 1989 (amendment 139); November 1, 1992 (amendment 447); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: United States v. William Arthur Brown, 202 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. William Arthur Brown, 202 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “5(a)(l) is also applicable under a drug conspiracy conviction, but it is for the district court to determine: (1) whether to increase Brown’s drug conspiracy base offense level of 36 by 4 levels based on USSG § 2D1.”

United States v. Jerry Jerome Anderson, 772 F.3d 662 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “The probation officer added four points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, because Anderson was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, resulting in a total offense level of 46.”

United States v. Hilario Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr., Also Known as Hilario Perez, Also Known as Mr. Perez, 105 F.3d 981 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “The Sentencing Guidelines direct the sentencing court to apply U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5 when a defendant is convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.”

McCray v. Vasbinder, 499 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “") superseded in part on other grounds by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5(a). In defending the district court's decision to apply equitable tolling to save his claims, McCray points to just one case Souter v.”

United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Operation of a continuing criminal enterprise carries a base offense level of 38, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5 (2004), but money laundering takes the offense level of the underlying crime, see U.”

United States v. Johnny Eng, 14 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Though the Guidelines refer to the CCE count as “one of the most serious forms of ongoing criminal activity,” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, commentary (1987), that reference does not mean that the CCE count must always determine the offense level for a group.”

United States v. Jimmy Lee Nixon, Richard Nixon, Michael Parks, Emmitt Lamar Manns, Henry L. Manns, Michael Keeley, Gerald Wells, 918 F.2d 895 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5. The guidelines explain why: Because a conviction under 21 U.”

UNITED STATES of Am., Appellant in No. 97-1433, v. Harry Lee RIDDICK, Jr., Harry Lee Riddick, Appellant in No. 97-1367, 156 F.3d 505 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “2 (distribution near *511 a school) and USSG § 2D1.5 (continuing criminal enterprise offenses) are to be grouped together.”

United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722 (1st Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “This was higher than the base offense level assigned to count 17, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, and thus became the trial court’s starting point.”

United States v. David Ronald Chandler, A/K/A Ronnie Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1993). “U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5. However, the report stated that the offense level should be adjusted to take into account relevant conduct, with respect to the enterprise pursuant to Section 1B1.”

David v. United States, 134 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 1998). “In his section 2255 motion and in the court below, David asseverated that a two-level increase only could have materialized if it were authorized for the CCE conviction, and that the two-level firearms enhancement was unavailable because the applicable sentencing guideline, USSG…”

Toufic Nagi v. United States, 90 F.3d 130 (6th Cir. 1996). “Attached to the plea agreement and incorporated by reference, worksheets calculated Nagi’s base offense level at 36 under USSG § 2D1.5, effective October 15, 1988.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— U.S.S.G. §2D1.5(a) — 12 cases

McCray v. Vasbinder, 499 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007). “") superseded in part on other grounds by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5(a). In defending the district court's decision to apply equitable tolling to save his claims, McCray points to just one case Souter v.”

United States v. John Paul Avery (95-6430), Sherry Avery Daniels (95-6443), Michele Avery Daniels (95-6521), 128 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 1997).

United States v. Hilario Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr., Also Known as Hilario Perez, Also Known as Mr. Perez, 105 F.3d 981 (5th Cir. 1997). “The Sentencing Guidelines direct the sentencing court to apply U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5 when a defendant is convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.”

State v. Collier, 2016 Ohio 4951 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).

United States v. Rivera, 282 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2000).

— U.S.S.G. §2D1.5(a)(1) — 4 cases

United States v. Pablo Salinas Brito Adrian Brito Jesus Salinas Brito Adan Brito Ignacio Berumez Brito Benjamin Hernandez Rodriguez, 136 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1998).

United States v. Jerry Walker, 114 F.4th 894 (7th Cir. 2024).

United States v. Brown (4th Cir. 2000).

Cole v. United States, 124 F. Supp. 3d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2015).

— U.S.S.G. §2D1.5(a)(2) — 4 cases

United States v. Luke Keller, 413 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2005).

United States v. William Arthur Brown, 202 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 2000). “5(a)(l) is also applicable under a drug conspiracy conviction, but it is for the district court to determine: (1) whether to increase Brown’s drug conspiracy base offense level of 36 by 4 levels based on USSG § 2D1.”

United States v. Luke Keller (8th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Brown (4th Cir. 2000).

— U.S.S.G. §2D1.5(a)(3) — 1 case

United States v. Johnny Eng, 14 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 1994). “Though the Guidelines refer to the CCE count as “one of the most serious forms of ongoing criminal activity,” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, commentary (1987), that reference does not mean that the CCE count must always determine the offense level for a group.”

— U.S.S.G. §2D1.5(a)(l) — 3 cases

United States v. Cole, 845 F. Supp. 270 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

United States v. Jerry Jerome Anderson, 478 F. App'x 636 (11th Cir. 2012).

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.