U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1
Substantial Assistance to Authorities
§5K1.1. Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement)
Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, a sentence that is below the otherwise applicable guideline range may be appropriate.
(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:
(1) the court's evaluation of the significance and usefulness of the defendant's assistance, taking into consideration the government's evaluation of the assistance rendered;
(2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant;
(3) the nature and extent of the defendant's assistance;
(4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance;
(5) the timeliness of the defendant's assistance.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Sentence Below Statutorily Required Minimum Sentence.—Under circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(n), as amended, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence. 2. Interaction with Acceptance of Responsibility Reduction.—The sentencing reduction for assistance to authorities shall be considered independently of any reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Substantial assistance is directed to the investigation and prosecution of criminal activities by persons other than the defendant, while acceptance of responsibility is directed to the defendant's affirmative recognition of responsibility for his own conduct. 3. Government's Evaluation of Extent of Defendant's Assistance.—Substantial weight should be given to the government's evaluation of the extent of the defendant's assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain. Background: A defendant's assistance to authorities in the investigation of criminal activities has been recognized in practice and by statute as a mitigating sentencing factor. The nature, extent, and significance of assistance can involve a broad spectrum of conduct that must be evaluated by the court on an individual basis. Latitude is, therefore, afforded the sentencing judge to reduce a sentence based upon variable relevant factors, including those listed above. The sentencing judge must, however, state the reasons for reducing a sentence under this section. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). The court may elect to provide its reasons to the defendant in camera and in writing under seal for the safety of the defendant or to avoid disclosure of an ongoing investigation.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 290); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,741
cases (202 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: United States v. Ressam
United States v. Ressam (2012)
“In exchange, the government agreed to file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion asking the court for a downward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range of 65 years to life, a range which was then mandatory.”
United States v. Hood (2009)
“§ 3553 (e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based on Hood’s substantial assistance.”
United States v. Altamirano-Quintero (2007)
“If, as a result, he provided the Government with "substantial assistance," then the Government agreed to move, under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 [3] and 18 *1090 U.S.C. § 3553(e), [4] for a downward departure at sentencing.”
United States v. Brian Ashley Martin, United States of America v. Brian Ashley Martin, United States of America v. Brian (1994)
“motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) “rests in the government’s sole discretion.”
United States v. Hameed (2010)
“§ 3553 (e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, allowing the district court to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum.”
United States v. Ressam (2010)
“background); see also U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 cmt. n. 3 (providing that "[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the government's evaluation of the extent of the defendant's assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain").”
United States v. Lindsey (2009)
“1, which Amendment 706 amended, and both defendants’ sentences were reduced by the district court under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for their substantial assistance to the government.”
United States v. Fernandez (2006)
“§ 3553 (a), even though the Government has not made a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; 2 and (7) in the circumstances presented, defendant’s sentence is unreasonably long.”
United States v. Darrin Todd Haack (2005)
“Haack pled guilty, and the government moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (e), recommending a ten percent departure on the conspiracy charge.”
United States v. Larson (2007)
“See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 (2004). Lamere pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and admitted to having distributed five kilograms of a substance containing methamphetamine.”
United States v. Burns (2007)
“See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, cmt. background (isolating the two factors based on their breadth).”
United States v. Grant (2011)
“Prior to sentencing, the government filed a request for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 (2004). The government explicitly did not request a departure under 18 U.”
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a) — 36 cases
United States v. Ressam (2010)
“background); see also U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 cmt. n. 3 (providing that "[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the government's evaluation of the extent of the defendant's assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain").”
United States v. Burns (2007)
“See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, cmt. background (isolating the two factors based on their breadth).”
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a)(1) — 27 cases
United States v. Ressam (2012)
“In exchange, the government agreed to file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion asking the court for a downward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range of 65 years to life, a range which was then mandatory.”
Koons v. United States (2018)
United States v. Livesay (2008)
United States v. Burns (2009)
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a)(2) — 11 cases
United States v. Aidoo (2012)
United States v. A.B. (2008)
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a)(3) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a)(4) — 8 cases
United States v. Rosales (2003)
United States v. Frank Gangi (1995)
United States v. Patrick Agu (1991)
United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Darnell L. Mason, Appellant/cross-Appellee (1992)
United States v. Saenz (2006)
— U.S.S.G. §5K1.1(a)(l) — 2 cases
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.