U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3
Community Service
Community service may be ordered as a condition of probation or supervised release.
Commentary
Application Note:
1. Community service generally should not be imposed in excess of 400 hours. Longer terms of community service impose heavy administrative burdens relating to the selection of suitable placements and the monitoring of attendance.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 283 and 302); November 1, 1991 (amendment 419).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Domingo Blount, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Domingo Blount, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015). “No doubt the judge, if he thought about this condition, would not have wanted it interpreted literally, especially since an application note to U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3 states that “community service generally should not be imposed in excess of 400 hours.”
United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3. 4 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that “the imposition of education, employment and community service conditions will further the statutory goal of providing ‘the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional…”
United States v. Robert D. McKissic, 428 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2005). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3. Furthermore, the imposition of education, employment and community service conditions will further the statutory goal of providing “the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most…”
United States v. Purham, 795 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2015). “And second, the district court did not mention the application note to U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3, which proscribes community service in excess of 400 hours.”
United States v. Richard Graham, III, 946 F.2d 19 (4th Cir. 1991). “Graham premises this contention on language in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3 that suggests that “[community service generally should not be imposed in excess of 400 hours.”
United States v. Flowers, 983 F. Supp. 159 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3; see also Malcolm M. Feeley, Richard Berk, and Alec Campbell, Between Two Extremes: An Examination of the Effectiveness of Community Service Orders and Their Implications for the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 66 S.”
United States v. Floyd, 738 F. Supp. 1256 (D. Minnesota 1990). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3. 8. The defendant shall participate in and complete any parent education classes recommended by the probation office.”
United States v. K, 160 F. Supp. 2d 421 (E.D.N.Y 2001). “See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3; see also Malcolm M. Feeley, Richard Berk, & Alec Campbell, Between Two Extremes: An Examination of the Effectiveness of Community Service Orders and Their Implications for the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 66 S.”
United States v. William Brooks, 472 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2012). “Although the district court had authority to generally impose a condition of community service concurrent with the term of supervised release under U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3, it had no discretion to impose community service as a substitute for repayment of attorney's fees.”
United States v. K, 160 F. Supp. 2d 421 (E.D.N.Y 2001). “See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3; see also Malcolm M. Feeley, Richard Berk, & Alec Campbell, Bettueen Two Extremes: An Examination of the Effectiveness of Community Service Orders and Their Implications for the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 66 S.”
United States v. Denny Hinkeldey, 124 F.4th 1093 (8th Cir. 2024). “§ 3563 (b)(4), (b)(12), the Guidelines commentary recommends that community service generally should not be imposed in excess of 400 hours, see U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3, comment. (n.1). Under this special condition, Hinkeldey could potentially be required to perform 20 hours of…”
United States v. Peters, 324 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Me. 2004). “The original motion was captioned "Defendant's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36 Motion To Clarify And/Or Amend Sentence In Accordance With U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3(b).’’ After the Government objected to the motion in part because a Rule 36 motion is restricted to "clerical…”
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.3(b) — 1 case
United States v. Peters, 324 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Me. 2004). “The original motion was captioned "Defendant's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36 Motion To Clarify And/Or Amend Sentence In Accordance With U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3(b).’’ After the Government objected to the motion in part because a Rule 36 motion is restricted to "clerical…”
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.