U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1
Classification of Violations
§7B1.1. Classification of Violations (Policy Statement)
(a) There are three grades of probation violations:
(1) Grade A Violations — conduct constituting (A) a federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that (i) is a crime of violence, (ii) is a controlled substance offense, or (iii) involves possession of a firearm or destructive device of a type described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a); or (B) any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding twenty years;
(2) Grade B Violations — conduct constituting any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year;
(3) Grade C Violations — conduct constituting (A) a federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less; or (B) a violation of any other condition of probation.
(b) Where there is more than one violation of the conditions of probation, or the violation includes conduct that constitutes more than one offense, the grade of the violation is determined by the violation having the most serious grade.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(a)(1), a mandatory condition of probation is that the defendant not commit another federal, state, or local crime. A violation of this condition may be charged whether or not the defendant has been the subject of a separate federal, state, or local prosecution for such conduct. The grade of violation does not depend upon the conduct that is the subject of criminal charges or of which the defendant is convicted in a criminal proceeding. Rather, the grade of the violation is to be based on the defendant's actual conduct. 2. "Crime of violence" is defined in §4B1.2 (Definitions of Terms Used in Section 4B1.1). See §4B1.2(a) and Application Note 1 of the Commentary to §4B1.2. 3. "Controlled substance offense" is defined in §4B1.2 (Definitions of Terms Used in Section 4B1.1). See §4B1.2(b) and Application Note 1 of the Commentary to §4B1.2. 4. A "firearm or destructive device of a type described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)" includes a shotgun, or a weapon made from a shotgun, with a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches; a rifle, or a weapon made from a rifle, with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; a machine gun; a muffler or silencer for a firearm; a destructive device; and certain large bore weapons. 5. Where the defendant is on probation in connection with a felony conviction, or has a prior felony conviction, possession of a firearm (other than a firearm of a type described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)) will generally constitute a Grade B violation, because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits a convicted felon from possessing a firearm. The term "generally" is used in the preceding sentence, however, because there are certain limited exceptions to the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 362). Amended effective November 1, 1992 (amendment 473); November 1, 1997 (amendment 568); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646); November 1, 2025 (amendment 835).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 738
cases (148 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). “We now conclude that North Carolina AWDWOGO does not meet the definition of a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. II. Generally, we review de novo the issue of whether a predicate offense constitutes a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines.”
United States v. Sid Willis, Jr., 795 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. When sentencing a defendant for violating a condition of supervised release, the district court “must determine the applicable advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Ramos, 979 F.3d 994 (2d Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. In other words, the note “instructs that in grading a violation of supervised release, a district court may consider not only conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case, but all of a defendant’s conduct.”
United States v. Erick Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2018). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). As provided by the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, Gibbs’s Grade A violation mandates revocation of supervised release, see U.”
United States v. John Montgomery, 893 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2018). “USSG § 7B1.1 recognizes "three grades of probation and supervised release violations": Grades A, B, and C.”
United States v. Darwin McNeil Germaine Robinson, 415 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2005). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, p.s. § 7B1.4, p.s. The Court considered going above the Guidelines range, but sentenced Robinson to 15 months, based on mitigating factors.”
Daniel Binderup v. Attorney Gen. United States, 836 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2016). “See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a), 7B1.4(a). The Challengers’ interpretation of the phrase “punishable by” would erode those distinctions.”
United States v. Garcia-Cartagena, 953 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2020). “" U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. So, says the government, once the court finds the defendant committed a new crime, it can ignore whatever law (with whatever elements) the defendant broke and just ask - 15 - whether his "actual conduct presented the use .”
United States v. Colon-Maldonado, 953 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 and cmt. n.2. Proving this takes two steps.”
United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2017). “2005) (citing USSG §§ 7B1.1-7B1.5), and the court had the authority to vary upward from the applicable range so long as the circumstances justified such a variance.”
United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008). “2002); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factfinding as to whether a violation occurred for clear error.”
United States v. Khalil Carter, 730 F.3d 187 (3rd Cir. 2013). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. Instead, “the grade of the violation is to be based on the defendant’s actual conduct,” and “may be charged whether or not the defendant has been the subject of a separate federal, state or local prosecution for such conduct.”
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(2) — 2 cases
United States O v. Brennick, 337 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2003).
United States v. Shumate, 669 F. App'x 42 (2d Cir. 2016).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(3) — 1 case
United States v. Wright, 64 F. App'x 578 (7th Cir. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a) — 71 cases
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). “We now conclude that North Carolina AWDWOGO does not meet the definition of a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. II. Generally, we review de novo the issue of whether a predicate offense constitutes a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines.”
United States v. Erick Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2018). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). As provided by the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, Gibbs’s Grade A violation mandates revocation of supervised release, see U.”
United States v. Ramos, 979 F.3d 994 (2d Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. In other words, the note “instructs that in grading a violation of supervised release, a district court may consider not only conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case, but all of a defendant’s conduct.”
Daniel Binderup v. Attorney Gen. United States, 836 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2016). “See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a), 7B1.4(a). The Challengers’ interpretation of the phrase “punishable by” would erode those distinctions.”
United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008). “2002); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factfinding as to whether a violation occurred for clear error.”
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1) — 141 cases
United States v. Erick Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2018). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). As provided by the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, Gibbs’s Grade A violation mandates revocation of supervised release, see U.”
United States v. Sid Willis, Jr., 795 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. When sentencing a defendant for violating a condition of supervised release, the district court “must determine the applicable advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Stevenson Harrison, 809 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Garcia-Cartagena, 953 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2020). “" U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. So, says the government, once the court finds the defendant committed a new crime, it can ignore whatever law (with whatever elements) the defendant broke and just ask - 15 - whether his "actual conduct presented the use .”
United States v. Ramos, 979 F.3d 994 (2d Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. In other words, the note “instructs that in grading a violation of supervised release, a district court may consider not only conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case, but all of a defendant’s conduct.”
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(A) — 3 cases
United States v. Simmons (2d Cir. 2019).
United States v. Danny I. Cade (11th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Kareem Murphy (3rd Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(i) — 7 cases
United States v. Sid Willis, Jr., 795 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. When sentencing a defendant for violating a condition of supervised release, the district court “must determine the applicable advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Colon-Maldonado, 953 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 and cmt. n.2. Proving this takes two steps.”
United States v. Tony Biddles, 707 F. App'x 461 (9th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Ronald Brown, 947 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2020).
United States v. John Whitehurst, 676 F. App'x 855 (11th Cir. 2017).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(ii) — 4 cases
United States v. Maurice Person (4th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Andrea Forsythe (3rd Cir. 2023).
United States v. Adrian Gambrell-Booker (4th Cir. 2025).
United States v. John Robert Ralph (8th Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(iii) — 2 cases
United States v. Fernandez-Santos (1st Cir. 2026).
United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2010).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(B) — 9 cases
United States v. Ramos, 979 F.3d 994 (2d Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. In other words, the note “instructs that in grading a violation of supervised release, a district court may consider not only conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case, but all of a defendant’s conduct.”
United States v. Sid Willis, Jr., 795 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. When sentencing a defendant for violating a condition of supervised release, the district court “must determine the applicable advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Danny I. Cade (11th Cir. 2019).
United States v. John Whitehurst, 676 F. App'x 855 (11th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Mintai Bedford (7th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(1)(ii) — 6 cases
United States v. Lloyd Gage (9th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Derrick Barber (7th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Derrick Barber (7th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Derrick Barber (7th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Saucedo-Munoz (5th Cir. 2002).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(2) — 149 cases
United States v. Tanco-Pizarro, 892 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2018).
United States v. Shannon Parks, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Clarence Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Joshua Riley, 920 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(3) — 133 cases
Daniel Binderup v. Attorney Gen. United States, 836 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2016). “See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a), 7B1.4(a). The Challengers’ interpretation of the phrase “punishable by” would erode those distinctions.”
United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2017). “2005) (citing USSG §§ 7B1.1-7B1.5), and the court had the authority to vary upward from the applicable range so long as the circumstances justified such a variance.”
United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Anthony Foley, 946 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(3)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Marcus Jenkins (11th Cir. 2021).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(3)(B) — 11 cases
United States v. Hardy Kocher, 932 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Howard Patton, 899 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Kevin Alphonzo Johnson (11th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Edgar Delarosa (7th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Marcus Smith, 179 F. App'x 636 (11th Cir. 2006).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(8)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Damon Jackson, 510 F. App'x 149 (3rd Cir. 2013).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(a)(l) — 5 cases
United States v. Sid Willis, Jr., 795 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n. 1. When sentencing a defendant for violating a condition of supervised release, the district court “must determine the applicable advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Golden, 843 F.3d 1162 (7th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Alejandro Luviano, 604 F. App'x 347 (5th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Shrewsbury, 53 F. App'x 323 (6th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Mitchell, 455 F. App'x 702 (7th Cir. 2012).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.1(b) — 46 cases
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). “We now conclude that North Carolina AWDWOGO does not meet the definition of a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. II. Generally, we review de novo the issue of whether a predicate offense constitutes a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines.”
United States v. Lorenzo Turner, 21 F.4th 862 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
United States v. Roger Campbell, II, 937 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Garcia-Cartagena, 953 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2020). “" U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 cmt. n.1. So, says the government, once the court finds the defendant committed a new crime, it can ignore whatever law (with whatever elements) the defendant broke and just ask - 15 - whether his "actual conduct presented the use .”
United States v. Eric Spivey, 926 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2019).
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.