U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12
§5H1.12. [Deleted]
Historical Note: Section 5H1.12 (Lack of Guidance as a Youth and Similar Circumstances (Policy Statement)), effective November 1, 1992 (amendment 466), and amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 674), was deleted effective November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
PART J – RELIEF FROM DISABILITY
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 55).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: United States v. Floyd Maurice Wilson, A/K/A Chinky, United States of Am. v. Floyd Maurice Wilson, A/K/A Chinky, 114 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Floyd Maurice Wilson, A/K/A Chinky, United States of Am. v. Floyd Maurice Wilson, A/K/A Chinky, 114 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1997). “With respect to the departure, the Government maintained that the recommendation of the presentence report for a departure improperly focused on Wilson’s underprivileged childhood and lack of parental guidance and amounted to a recommendation for a departure for Wilson’s lack of…”
United States v. Mirna Rivera, United States v. Robert Adamo, 994 F.2d 942 (1st Cir. 1993). “The Guidelines also state that “lack of guidance as a youth” cannot justify departure, U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12, p.s., that drug or alcohol abuse is not a reason for imposing a sentence below the Guidelines range, U.”
United States v. Ramon Gomez Godinez, 474 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2007). “Gomez Godinez next argues that the court erred by not granting him a two level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12 because he lacked guidance as a youth and because his life circumstances put this case outside of the heartland.”
United States v. Daryl L. Wilson, Stevie Thomas, Donnell L. Cohn, Sammy Armstead, & Tyree Collins, 481 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2007). “3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2006). Indeed, considered on its merits rather than by the title Armstead has chosen, the argument was probably foreclosed at the time of sentencing by U.”
United States v. Stacey C. Koon, Cross-Appellee. United States of Am. v. Laurence M. Powell, Cross-Appellee, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994). “1992), and subsequently superseded, U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12; Anders, 956 F.2d at 911-14 .”
United States v. Alex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, & Steven Ng, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994). “USSG § 5H1.12, p.s. 8 . Chan and Tran erroneously believe that the district court imposed a fine of $250,000 for each count of conviction, for fines totalling several millions of dollars.”
United States v. Browning, 252 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2001). “As a general matter, U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12 prohibits downward departures for “[l]ack of guidance as a youth and similar circumstances indicating a disadvantaged upbringing.”
United States v. Marius Canoy, 38 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12. Thus, when the Commission wished to prohibit district courts from considering a certain specific offender characteristic in their departure decisions, the Commission did so directly.”
United States v. Theodore T. Rybicki, United States of Am. v. Theodore T. Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 1996). “10 (race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, socio-economic status); U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12 (lack of guidance during youth); U.”
United States v. Wilson, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Utah 2005). “U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12 (policy statement). 64 .”
United States of Am., Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. James Payton, AKA James Perkins, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 159 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1998). “The First and Second Factors The Guidelines expressly prohibit a sentencing judge from considering a defendant’s lack of guidance as a youth and similar circumstances, which would include lack of a male role model, see U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12, and a defendant’s history of drug abuse,…”
United States v. Donald Reece Brock, 108 F.3d 31 (4th Cir. 1997). “); lack of youthful guidance or similar circumstances indicating a disadvantaged upbringing (U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12, p.s.); personal financial difficulties or economic pressure on a trade or business (U.”
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.