U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4
Terrorism
(a) If the offense is a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism, increase by 12 levels; but if the resulting offense level is less than level 32, increase to level 32.
(b) In each such case, the defendant's criminal history category from Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) shall be Category VI.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. "Federal Crime of Terrorism" Defined.—For purposes of this guideline, "federal crime of terrorism" has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5). 2. Harboring, Concealing, and Obstruction Offenses.—For purposes of this guideline, an offense that involved (A) harboring or concealing a terrorist who committed a federal crime of terrorism (such as an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2339 or § 2339A); or (B) obstructing an investigation of a federal crime of terrorism, shall be considered to have involved, or to have been intended to promote, that federal crime of terrorism. 3. Computation of Criminal History Category.— Under subsection (b), if the defendant's criminal history category as determined under Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) is less than Category VI, it shall be increased to Category VI.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1995 (amendment 526). Amended effective November 1, 1996 (amendment 539); November 1, 1997 (amendment 565); November 1, 2002 (amendment 637); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Terrorism Enhancement — U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. 1. Sentencing Commission’s Authority to Promulgate U.”
United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009). “The government also argues that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the Guidelines terrorism adjustment, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, to Yousry's offense level.”
United States v. Stephen John Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2005). “The government appeals the district court’s denial of its request for an upward departure pursuant to Application Note 4 of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. The district court denied the request, concluding that the government had failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s crime transcended…”
United States v. Randy Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001). “The drug counts and the firearm counts were manifestly related, and the introduction of evidence on all counts did not prejudice Graham.”
United States v. Christopher Hasson, 26 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2022). “At sentencing, the district court increased Hasson’s Guidelines range pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 upon concluding that his offense was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism, and the court sentenced him to 160 months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Awan, 607 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2010). “Sifton, Judge) finding the Sentencing Guidelines’ terrorism enhancement, which applies to felonies that “involved, or [were] intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism,” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, inapplicable to all of Cross-Appellee Khalid Awan’s counts of conviction.”
United States v. Douglas Wright, 747 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2014). “The district court applied a 12-level terrorism enhancement to each defendant’s sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. All four defendants now challenge the application of the terrorism enhancement, which requires that the offense be “calculated to influence or affect the…”
United States v. Thomas C. Leahy, 169 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 1999). “6 Instead, the court relied upon U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, the Terrorism guideline, to justify the extent of the upward departure.”
United States v. Dowell, 430 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2005). “In calculating Dowell’s sentence, the district court applied the sentencing guidelines terrorism enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. 7 Relying on Blakely v.”
United States v. Francisco Joseph Arcila Ramirez, 16 F.4th 844 (11th Cir. 2021). “Arcila Ramirez challenges the district court’s imposition of the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. After review and oral argument, we conclude that the district court failed to make the required fact findings for the terrorism enhancement; thus, we vacate Arcila…”
United States v. Imran Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004). “Mandhai contends that the district court erred in imposing the terrorism enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 (2001) and the role enhancement of U.”
United States v. Salim, 549 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2008). “On cross-appeal, the United States contends that the district court erred in failing to apply the “Terrorism” enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, on the basis that the offense conduct did not transcend national boundaries.”
— U.S.S.G. §3A1.4(a) — 55 cases
United States v. Stephen John Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2005). “The government appeals the district court’s denial of its request for an upward departure pursuant to Application Note 4 of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. The district court denied the request, concluding that the government had failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s crime transcended…”
United States v. Christopher Hasson, 26 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2022). “At sentencing, the district court increased Hasson’s Guidelines range pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 upon concluding that his offense was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism, and the court sentenced him to 160 months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Pirouz Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Douglas Wright, 747 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2014). “The district court applied a 12-level terrorism enhancement to each defendant’s sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. All four defendants now challenge the application of the terrorism enhancement, which requires that the offense be “calculated to influence or affect the…”
United States v. Abdullahi Fidse, 862 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2017).
— U.S.S.G. §3A1.4(b) — 10 cases
United States v. Pratheepan Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014).
United States v. Kourani, 6 F.4th 345 (2d Cir. 2021).
United States v. Defreitas, 718 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013).
United States v. Marie Mason, 410 F. App'x 881 (6th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Muhammad Masood, 133 F.4th 799 (8th Cir. 2025).
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.