Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 3

U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3

[Deleted]

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Historical Note: Section 3D1.3 (Offense Level Applicable to Each Group of Closely Related Counts), effective November 1, 1987, and amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 257 and 303), November 1, 2001 (amendment 617), November 1, 2004 (amendment 674), November 1, 2023 (amendment 824), and November 1, 2025 (amendment 836), was deleted effective November 1, 2026 (amendment 840).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 387 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: United States v. Samuel Saldana, Jr., United States of Am. v. Saul Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Samuel Saldana, Jr., United States of Am. v. Saul Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “” 52 In the ordinary case, a district court may adjust an offense level upward under U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3 and 3D1.4 for multiple count convictions, to account for the greater harm; however, no such adjustment was available in this case.”
United States v. Darrell Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “He contends that the district court violated U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3’s command that, when closely related counts are grouped together for sentencing purposes, the offense level applicable to the most serious of the counts comprising the group controls.”
United States v. Emanuel Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “” USSG § 3D1.3, cmt. n. 1. 9 . We disagree with the Ninth Circuit in one respect; we do not think the grouping rules control calculations under Chapter Four.”
United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “2016) (citing U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3, 3D1.4). At the risk of oversimplification, here is how that ordi-.”
United States v. Hugo Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “3(a); see also U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3 cmt. n.2 (“When counts are grouped .”
United States v. Chad Austin, 239 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “He asserts that this error, when coupled with the first, resulted in an erroneous one-level enhancement in his offense level because the court applied U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3 to determine the offense level for his multiple counts rather than U.”
United States v. John Canova, 412 F.3d 331 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “10 See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a) (stating that for offenses grouped pursuant to § 3D1.”
United States v. Martin, 363 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “8 Applying U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3, the court set the grouped offense level at 20 — the highest offense level of the counts in the group (the fraud counts).”
United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “[11] Grant's reliance on application note 2 of U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3 (2004) is misplaced because the counts being grouped in this case are distinct crimes with separate Guidelines provisions that "involv[e] substantially the same harm" and "transactions connected by a common criminal…”
United States v. Carole Diaz, 245 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3(a), 3D1.4; see also Smith, 186 F.”
United States v. Gordon, 291 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a)(determining offense levels under § 3D1.”
United States v. Certified Env't Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). The defendants objected to the initial loss calculations.”
Show all 387 citing cases →
U.S.S.G. §3D1.3(a): 197 cases
United States v. John Canova, 412 F.3d 331 (2d Cir. 2005). “10 See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a) (stating that for offenses grouped pursuant to § 3D1.”
United States v. Carole Diaz, 245 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2001). “See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3(a), 3D1.4; see also Smith, 186 F.”
United States v. Emanuel Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004). “” USSG § 3D1.3, cmt. n. 1. 9 . We disagree with the Ninth Circuit in one respect; we do not think the grouping rules control calculations under Chapter Four.”
United States v. Darrell Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024 (6th Cir. 2007). “He contends that the district court violated U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3’s command that, when closely related counts are grouped together for sentencing purposes, the offense level applicable to the most serious of the counts comprising the group controls.”
United States v. Certified Env't Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2014). “See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). The defendants objected to the initial loss calculations.”
U.S.S.G. §3D1.3(b): 95 cases
United States v. Von Dale Massey, Sr., United States of Am. v. Sandra Wilkins, United States of Am. v. Jack Z. Wilkins, 48 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Gregory E. Caplinger, 339 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Samuel Saldana, Jr., United States of Am. v. Saul Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005). “” 52 In the ordinary case, a district court may adjust an offense level upward under U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3 and 3D1.4 for multiple count convictions, to account for the greater harm; however, no such adjustment was available in this case.”
United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999).
United States v. Fred De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001).
U.S.S.G. §3D1.3(b)(1998): 2 cases
United States v. Samuel Saldana, Jr., United States of Am. v. Saul Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005). “” 52 In the ordinary case, a district court may adjust an offense level upward under U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.3 and 3D1.4 for multiple count convictions, to account for the greater harm; however, no such adjustment was available in this case.”
United States v. Saldana, No. 04-50527 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2005).
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.