U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3
Revocation of Probation
§7B1.3. Revocation of Probation (Policy Statement)
(a) (1) Upon a finding of a Grade A or B violation, the court shall revoke probation.
(2) Upon a finding of a Grade C violation, the court may (A) revoke probation; or (B) extend the term of probation and/or modify the conditions thereof.
(b) In the case of a revocation of probation, the applicable range of imprisonment is that set forth in §7B1.4 (Term of Imprisonment).
(c) In the case of a Grade B or C violation—
(1) Where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under §7B1.4 (Term of Imprisonment) is at least one month but not more than six months, the minimum term may be satisfied by (A) a sentence of imprisonment; or (B) a sentence of imprisonment that includes a term of supervised release with a condition that substitutes community confinement or home detention according to the schedule in §5C1.1(e) for any portion of the minimum term; and
(2) Where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under §7B1.4 (Term of Imprisonment) is more than six months but not more than ten months, the minimum term may be satisfied by (A) a sentence of imprisonment; or (B) a sentence of imprisonment that includes a term of supervised release with a condition that substitutes community confinement or home detention according to the schedule in §5C1.1(e), provided that at least one-half of the minimum term is satisfied by imprisonment.
(3) In the case of a revocation based, at least in part, on a violation of a condition specifically pertaining to community confinement, intermittent confinement, or home detention, use of the same or a less restrictive sanction is not recommended.
(d) Any restitution, fine, community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement previously imposed in connection with the sentence for which revocation is ordered that remains unpaid or unserved at the time of revocation shall be ordered to be paid or served in addition to the sanction determined under §7B1.4 (Term of Imprisonment), and any such unserved period of community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement may be converted to an equivalent period of imprisonment.
(e) Where the court revokes probation and imposes a term of imprisonment, it shall increase the term of imprisonment determined under subsections (b), (c), and (d) above by the amount of time in official detention that will be credited toward service of the term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), other than time in official detention resulting from the federal probation violation warrant or proceeding.
(f) Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation.
(g) If probation is revoked and a term of imprisonment is imposed, the provisions of §§5D1.1–1.3 shall apply to the imposition of a term of supervised release.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Revocation of probation generally is the appropriate disposition in the case of a Grade C violation by a defendant who, having been continued on probation after a finding of violation, again violates the conditions of his probation. 2. Subsection (e) is designed to ensure that the revocation penalty is not decreased by credit for time in official detention other than time in official detention resulting from the federal probation violation warrant or proceeding. Example: A defendant, who was in pre-trial detention for three months, is placed on probation, and subsequently violates that probation. The court finds the violation to be a Grade C violation, determines that the applicable range of imprisonment is 4–10 months, and determines that revocation of probation and imposition of a term of imprisonment of four months is appropriate. Under subsection (e), a sentence of seven months imprisonment would be required because the Federal Bureau of Prisons, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), will allow the defendant three months' credit toward the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. 3. Subsection (f) provides that any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation shall run consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment being served by the defendant. Similarly, it is the Commission's recommendation that any sentence of imprisonment for a criminal offense that is imposed after revocation of probation release be run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. 4. Intermittent confinement is authorized as a condition of probation during the first year of the term of probation. 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(10); see also §5F1.8 (Intermittent Confinement).Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 362). Amended effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 427); November 1, 1995 (amendment 533); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646); November 1, 2004 (amendment 664); November 1, 2009 (amendment 733); November 1, 2025 (amendment 835).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 756
cases (119 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011). “It also noted that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), any sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release should run consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment.”
United States v. Cardell Brown, 823 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2016). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Counsel also considers but rightly rejects a challenge to the reasonableness of the term of reimprisonment.”
United States v. Dwayne Head, 817 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See USSG § 7B1.3 (1990); see also USSG § 7B1.”
United States v. Kenneth Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012). “Specifically, the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) states: Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of .”
United States v. Timothy Tyrone Rockwell, 984 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1993). “Second, the proposed legislation noted in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment, (n. 3), and relied on by the majority in the Boling decision, the Biden-Thurmond Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, S.”
United States v. Tisdale, 248 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2001). “The note then refers to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 and describes that section as “setting forth a policy that any imprisonment penalty imposed for violating probation or supervised release should be consecutive to any sentence of imprisonment being served or subsequently imposed.”
United States v. Taylor, 628 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2010). “In addition, the Summary cited a policy statement within the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), for the proposition that any term of incarceration for the supervised release violation must be made consecutive to the bank robbery sentence.”
United States v. Dalen King, 914 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 2019). “The policy statement applicable here, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), provides: Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of .”
United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018). “The Sentencing Commission has only issued policy statements for terms of imprisonment after revocation, which classify violations, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, and recommend applicable sentencing ranges, U.”
United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2019). “He bases this argument on the Probation Officer's erroneous paraphrasing of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2) in the Revocation Report 12 and several cited cases that imposed a statutory maximum sentence on revocation but no additional term of supervised release.”
United States v. Timothy Scott Boling, 947 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1991). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment, (n. 3). The comments of members of Congress who are now in the process of amending § 3583 make clear that they too disagree with Behnezhad .”
United States v. Reginald Levi, 2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). “He contends that his sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because the court relied on a policy statement in the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), *844 which was not in effect at the time he committed the underlying offense.”
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(2) — 1 case
United States v. Michael Patterson, 230 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2000).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a) — 13 cases
United States v. Vencent Scales, 639 F. App'x 233 (5th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Giovanni Ramirez, 347 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Jack Brent Crace, 207 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000).
United States v. George Alan Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Fulton, 567 F. App'x 668 (10th Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a)(1) — 43 cases
United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Ezekiel Dennison, 925 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Cloist Jimison, Jr., 825 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Mark Johnson, 356 F. App'x 785 (6th Cir. 2009).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a)(2) — 75 cases
United States v. Giovanni Ramirez, 347 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Cloist Jimison, Jr., 825 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Elvis E. Webb, 30 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 1994).
United States v. Roger Campbell, II, 937 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Glover, 154 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1998).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Ramon Salas-Contreras, 401 F. App'x 283 (9th Cir. 2010).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Hale, 95 F. App'x 820 (6th Cir. 2004).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(a)(l) — 41 cases
United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Young, 634 F.3d 233 (3rd Cir. 2011).
United States v. Valerie Malisse Hooker, 993 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
United States v. Eirby, 515 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008).
United States v. Gary Mitsven, 452 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2006).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(b) — 4 cases
United States v. David M. Gibbs, 58 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 1995).
United States v. Varieur (2d Cir. 2025).
United States v. Crumb, 57 F. App'x 820 (10th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Keith Whittingham, 544 F. App'x 928 (11th Cir. 2013).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c) — 4 cases
United States v. McCauley, 102 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
United States v. Hill (10th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Barber, 381 F. Supp. 3d 660 (E.D. Va. 2019).
United States v. Calvin Plummer, 579 F. App'x 141 (3rd Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Lamar Bertucci, 83 F.4th 1086 (8th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Lewis (6th Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Tyree Arvell Monroe (11th Cir. 2022).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Adams, Natasha, 240 F. App'x 728 (7th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Wilson, 87 F. App'x 553 (6th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Wayne Michael Fisher (8th Cir. 2018).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c)(3) — 4 cases
United States v. Danielle Nicole McCaslin, 505 F. App'x 827 (11th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Luis Gerardo Valdez (11th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Myers, 129 F. Supp. 2d 773 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
United States v. White, 601 F. App'x 599 (10th Cir. 2015).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(c)(l) — 9 cases
United States v. Amos Searan & Jeanettia Searan, 259 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Ilayayev, 800 F. Supp. 2d 417 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
United States v. Acamie Salter, 420 F. App'x 519 (6th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Thompson, 240 F. Supp. 2d 325 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(d) — 15 cases
United States v. Reginald Levi, 2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). “He contends that his sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because the court relied on a policy statement in the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), *844 which was not in effect at the time he committed the underlying offense.”
United States v. Kathleen Kremser Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Kendra Krueger, 613 F. App'x 451 (6th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Demario Brown, 519 F. App'x 359 (6th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Eduardo Quintana-Sotelo (5th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(e) — 10 cases
United States v. Jerry Waters, 84 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996).
United States v. Peter Timothy Whaley, 148 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 1998).
United States v. Whaley, 5 F. Supp. 2d 110 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
United States v. Joseph Cannon, 719 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2013).
J.P.C. (JUV) v. United States, 430 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D.S.D. 2006).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(e)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Wilson, 87 F. App'x 553 (6th Cir. 2004).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(f) — 430 cases
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011). “It also noted that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), any sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release should run consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment.”
United States v. Kenneth Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012). “Specifically, the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) states: Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of .”
United States v. Taylor, 628 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2010). “In addition, the Summary cited a policy statement within the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), for the proposition that any term of incarceration for the supervised release violation must be made consecutive to the bank robbery sentence.”
United States v. Dalen King, 914 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 2019). “The policy statement applicable here, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), provides: Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of .”
United States v. Eric L. Swan, 275 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2002).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(g) — 4 cases
United States v. Earl Truss, Jr., 4 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Card (4th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Stinnett, 559 F. App'x 783 (10th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Shavon Collins, 578 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(g)(1) — 4 cases
United States v. Bobby E. Wesley, 81 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Tony McCullough, 46 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Varieur (2d Cir. 2025).
United States v. Maurice S. Johnson, 36 F. App'x 567 (8th Cir. 2002).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(g)(2) — 38 cases
United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2019). “He bases this argument on the Probation Officer's erroneous paraphrasing of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2) in the Revocation Report 12 and several cited cases that imposed a statutory maximum sentence on revocation but no additional term of supervised release.”
United States v. Timothy Tyrone Rockwell, 984 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1993). “Second, the proposed legislation noted in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment, (n. 3), and relied on by the majority in the Boling decision, the Biden-Thurmond Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, S.”
United States v. Timothy Scott Boling, 947 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1991). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment, (n. 3). The comments of members of Congress who are now in the process of amending § 3583 make clear that they too disagree with Behnezhad .”
United States v. Cardell Brown, 823 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2016). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Counsel also considers but rightly rejects a challenge to the reasonableness of the term of reimprisonment.”
United States v. Randy Campos, 922 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(g)(l) — 6 cases
United States v. Armstrong, 227 F. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
United States v. Segars, 226 F. Supp. 2d 686 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
United States v. Thompson, 240 F. Supp. 2d 325 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
United States v. Bibbs, 252 F. Supp. 2d 170 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
United States v. Nelson, 221 F. Supp. 2d 576 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(i) — 1 case
United States v. Terri Payseno, 277 F. App'x 644 (8th Cir. 2008).
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.