U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1

Procedure for Determining Offense Level on Multiple Counts

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)       When a defendant has been convicted of more than one count, the court shall:

(1)       Group the counts resulting in conviction into distinct Groups of Closely Related Counts ("Groups") by applying the rules specified in §3D1.2.

(2)       Determine the offense level applicable to each Group by applying the rules specified in §3D1.3.

(3)       Determine the combined offense level applicable to all Groups taken together by applying the rules specified in §3D1.4.

(b)      Exclude from the application of §§3D1.2–3D1.5 the following:

(1)       Any count for which the statute (A) specifies a term of imprisonment to be imposed; and (B) requires that such term of imprisonment be imposed to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.  Sentences for such counts are governed by the provisions of §5G1.2(a).

(2)       Any count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1028ASee Application Note 2(B) of the Commentary to §5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) for guidance on how sentences for multiple counts of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A should be imposed.

 

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.     In General.—For purposes of sentencing multiple counts of conviction, counts can be (A) contained in the same indictment or information; or (B) contained in different indictments or informations for which sentences are to be imposed at the same time or in a consolidated proceeding.

2.     Application of Subsection (b).—Subsection (b)(1) applies if a statute (A) specifies a term of imprisonment to be imposed; and (B) requires that such term of imprisonment be imposed to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.  See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (requiring mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, based on the conduct involved, to run consecutively).  The multiple count rules set out under this part do not apply to a count of conviction covered by subsection (b).  However, a count covered by subsection (b)(1) may affect the offense level determination for other counts.   For example, a defendant is convicted of one count of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113), and one count of use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).  The two counts are not grouped together pursuant to this guideline, and, to avoid unwarranted double counting, the offense level for the bank robbery count under §2B3.1 (Robbery) is computed without application of the enhancement for weapon possession or use as otherwise required by subsection (b)(2) of that guideline.  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the mandatory minimum five-year sentence on the weapon-use count runs consecutively to the guideline sentence imposed on the bank robbery count.  See §5G1.2(a).

Unless specifically instructed, subsection (b)(1) does not apply when imposing a sentence under a statute that requires the imposition of a consecutive term of imprisonment only if a term of imprisonment is imposed (i.e., the statute does not otherwise require a term of imprisonment to be imposed).  See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Penalty for failure to appear); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4) (regarding penalty for 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone)); 18 U.S.C. § 1791(c) (penalty for providing or possessing a controlled substance in prison).  Accordingly, the multiple count rules set out under this part do apply to a count of conviction under this type of statute.

Background:  This section outlines the procedure to be used for determining the combined offense level.  After any adjustments from Chapter Three, Parts E (Acceptance of Responsibility) and F (Early Disposition Programs), and Chapter Four, Parts B (Career Offenders and Criminal Livelihood) and C (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders) are made, this combined offense level is used to determine the guideline sentence range.  Chapter Five (Determining the Sentencing Range and Options Under the Guidelines) discusses how to determine the sentence from the (combined) offense level; §5G1.2 deals specifically with determining the sentence of imprisonment when convictions on multiple counts are involved.  References in Chapter Five (Determining the Sentencing Range and Options Under the Guidelines) to the "offense level" should be treated as referring to the combined offense level after all subsequent adjustments have been made.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 348); November 1, 1998 (amendment 579); November 1, 2000 (amendment 598); November 1, 2005 (amendments 677 and 680); November 1, 2007 (amendment 707); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 292 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: United States v. David Casillas, 830 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2016).
United States v. David Casillas, 830 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “This left him with an Adjusted Offense Level of 38, which was increased by one level due to a multiple-count adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1, driven by the alleged assault with intent to murder Darryl Patton.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). “See USSG § 3D1.1. The single most serious offense in Rita's case is "perjury.”
United States v. Keith A. Hargrove, 478 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “” See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 introductory cmt. (2005).”
United States v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “) The parties also agreed that the drug trafficking and money laundering offenses should be treated as closely related counts pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 and that a three-level downward adjustment would be appropriate to reflect Dews's timely plea and his acceptance of…”
United States v. Nicodemo Scarfo, 41 F.4th 136 (3rd Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(a). The court then “[d]etermine[s] the offense level applicable to each Group” and “the combined offense level applicable to all Groups taken together[.”
United States v. Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 requires the district court, "[w]hen a defendant has been convicted of more than one count .”
United States v. William Aramony, United States of Am. v. Thomas J. Merlo, 166 F.3d 655 (4th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the grouping rules of the Sentencing Guidelines, see USSG § 3D1.1-5 (1991), 1 the Defendants’ money laundering convictions provided their respective base offense levels for purposes of calculating their sentencing ranges.”
United States v. Oscar Ronda, 455 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “3; and (3) a three-level increase pursuant to the multiple count Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1 through 3D1.5. 38 Appellant Aguero’s total adjusted offense *1302 level of 19 and his criminal history category of I produced a Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001). “See USSG § 3D1.1(a)(1). As to the eleven marijuana counts, the court accepted Duarte’s aforesaid admission anent drug quantity and, accordingly, set the base offense level at 32.”
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012). “In accordance with the grouping rules in U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1(a) and 3D1.4, a one-level increase was applied to the higher of these two adjusted offense levels to yield a combined adjusted offense level of 39.”
United States v. Lester Leroy Hummer, 916 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “1 Hummer’s offenses were grouped pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1. Under this section and section 3D1.”
James Harold Griffith v. United States, 871 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2017). “§ 924 (c); U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1(a), 3D1.2(d). To calculate Griffith’s base offense level, the PSR applied § 2Dl.”
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(a) — 25 cases
United States v. Nicodemo Scarfo, 41 F.4th 136 (3rd Cir. 2022). “” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(a). The court then “[d]etermine[s] the offense level applicable to each Group” and “the combined offense level applicable to all Groups taken together[.”
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012). “In accordance with the grouping rules in U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1(a) and 3D1.4, a one-level increase was applied to the higher of these two adjusted offense levels to yield a combined adjusted offense level of 39.”
James Harold Griffith v. United States, 871 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2017). “§ 924 (c); U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1(a), 3D1.2(d). To calculate Griffith’s base offense level, the PSR applied § 2Dl.”
United States v. Rodriguez, 715 F.3d 451 (2d Cir. 2013).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(a)(1) — 15 cases
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001). “See USSG § 3D1.1(a)(1). As to the eleven marijuana counts, the court accepted Duarte’s aforesaid admission anent drug quantity and, accordingly, set the base offense level at 32.”
United States v. Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006). “U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 requires the district court, "[w]hen a defendant has been convicted of more than one count .”
United States v. Michael Flowers, 476 F. App'x 55 (6th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Evester Gordon, 974 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1992).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Bertoli, 854 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1994).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Lacefield, 250 F. App'x 670 (6th Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(a)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Aaron Brian Sands, 480 F. App'x 966 (11th Cir. 2012).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(b) — 5 cases
Valladares v. USA-2255 (D. Maryland 2023).
Avila v. United States (W.D.N.C. 2022).
United States v. Chavez-Reyes, 29 F. App'x 125 (4th Cir. 2002).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(b)(1) — 15 cases
United States v. Roderick Sinclair, 770 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Pierre Bell, 477 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes, 714 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013).
United States v. William Curtis, 66 F.4th 690 (7th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Joseph Furey Lusk, 119 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Figueroa-Ocasio, 805 F.3d 360 (1st Cir. 2015).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(b)(12) — 1 case
United States v. Javier Villareal, 567 F. App'x 467 (8th Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §3D1.1(b)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Darrell Smith, 944 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Jean Mari Lindor, 613 F. App'x 777 (11th Cir. 2015).
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.