Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 5

U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1

Community Confinement

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Community confinement may be imposed as a condition of probation or supervised release.

 

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.      "Community confinement" means residence in a community treatment center, halfway house, restitution center, mental health facility, alcohol or drug rehabilitation center, or other community facility; and participation in gainful employment, employment search efforts, community service, vocational training, treatment, educational programs, or similar facility-approved programs during non-residential hours. 

2.      Community confinement generally should not be imposed for a period in excess of six months.  A longer period may be imposed to accomplish the objectives of a specific rehabilitative program, such as drug rehabilitation.  The sentencing judge may impose other discretionary conditions of probation or supervised release appropriate to effectuate community confinement.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 302); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646); November 1, 2009 (amendment 733).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: United States v. Edward Bahe, 201 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Edward Bahe, 201 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 7× “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1. 6 Indeed, the district court in this case specifically relied on § 5F1.”
United States v. Rodney Henry, 819 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Even assuming that he did not waive the argument, however, his reply briefs reasoning does not meet his burden to show plain error.”
United States v. Huffman, 146 F. App'x 939 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “” USSG §5F1.1, comment. (n.1). -4- 3563(b).”
United States v. Kathleen Kremser Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Whereas halfway house residency is a form of "community confinement” wherein the resident enjoys considerable freedom to engage in a variety of activities outside of the halfway house during "non-residential hours,” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1 & commentary (n. 1 & 2), a person under home…”
United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015). “Indeed, residential reentry centers are sometimes referred to as “community confinement” facilities, see U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1, or “halfway houses,” as Matta himself described them during his sentencing, Joint App’x at 110.”
United States v. Gilpatrick, 548 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1 n. 2 (stating "[c]ommunity confinement generally should not be imposed for a period in excess of six months").”
United States v. Adrian Pielago, Maria Varona, 135 F.3d 703 (11th Cir. 1998). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1 comment, (n.l). These two provisions indicate that the Sentencing Commission considered a sentence to confinement in a community treatment center to be different from a “sentence of imprisonment.”
United States v. Arnold Taylor, 78 F.4th 1132 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “The panel explained that the Sentencing Guidelines permit community confinement to be imposed for longer than six months when, as here, intended to achieve successful drug rehabilitation (U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1 cmt. nt. 2); and that inpatient treatment * This summary constitutes no…”
United States v. Bruce Loren Latimer, 991 F.2d 1509 (9th Cir. 1993). “See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1, comment (n. 1) (“ ‘Community confinement’ means residence in a community treatment center, halfway house, restitution center, mental health facility, alcohol or drug rehabilitation center, or other community facility.”
United States v. Reginald Levi, 2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1, comment, (n. 1). On February 3, 1993, while Levi was participating in the work release program, the court again found that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release.”
United States v. John D. Rasco, 963 F.2d 132 (6th Cir. 1992). “, U.S.S.G. § 5F1.1, comment. (n. 1). 3 . At oral argument, counsel for the defendant argued that § 4A1.”
United States v. Gregory Swigert, 18 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 1994). “DISCUSSION The government first contends that Swigert’s appeal is moot because he has completed his eight-month prison term and has begun serving his three years of supervised release. We disagree. The community confinement or home detention component of a split sentence under…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.1(b) — 1 case
United States v. Randall Wilson Britt, 332 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2003).
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.