Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 7

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4

Term of Imprisonment—Probation

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§7B1.4.     Term of Imprisonment—Probation (Policy Statement)

(a)       The range of imprisonment applicable upon revocation is set forth in the following table:

Probation Revocation Table
(in months of imprisonment)

  

Criminal History Category*

Grade of Violation IIIIIIIVVVI
 
Grade C 3–94–105–11 6–127–138–14
 
Grade B 4–10 6–128–1412–1818–2421–27
 
Grade A 12–1815–2118–2424–3030–3733–41
 

*The criminal history category is the category applicable at the time the defendant originally was sentenced to a term of probation.

(b)      Provided, that—

(1)       Where the statutorily authorized maximum term of imprisonment that is imposable upon revocation is less than the minimum of the applicable range, the statutorily authorized maximum term shall be substituted for the applicable range; and

(2)       Where the minimum term of imprisonment required by statute, if any, is greater than the maximum of the applicable range, the minimum term of imprisonment required by statute shall be substituted for the applicable range.

(3)       In any other case, the sentence upon revocation may be imposed at any point within the applicable range, provided that the sentence—

(A)       is not greater than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by statute; and

(B)       is not less than any minimum term of imprisonment required by statute.

 

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.      The criminal history category to be used in determining the applicable range of imprisonment in the Probation Revocation Table is the category determined at the time the defendant originally was sentenced to the term of probation. The criminal history category is not to be recalculated because the ranges set forth in the Probation Revocation Table have been designed to take into account that the defendant violated probation. Example: A defendant, who was originally sentenced in 2022, was determined to have a criminal history category of II due in part to having committed the offense "while under any criminal justice sentence." See §4A1.1(d) (Criminal History Category) (Nov. 2021). For purposes of determining the applicable range of imprisonment in the Probation Revocation Table, the defendant’s criminal history category is category II, regardless of whether the defendant’s criminal history category would be reduced for other purposes based on the retroactive application of Part A of Amendment 821 pursuant to §1B1.10 (Reduction of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)). See USSG App. C, Amendment 825 (effective November 1, 2023).

In the rare case in which no criminal history category was determined when the defendant originally was sentenced to the term of probation being revoked, the court shall determine the criminal history category that would have been applicable at the time the defendant originally was sentenced to the term of probation. (See the criminal history provisions of §§4A1.1–4B1.4.)

2.      Upon a finding that a defendant violated a condition of probation by being in possession of a controlled substance or firearm or by refusing to comply with a condition requiring drug testing, the court is required to revoke probation and impose a sentence that includes a term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b).

3.      In the case of a defendant who fails a drug test, the court shall consider whether the availability of appropriate substance abuse programs, or a defendant's current or past participation in such programs, warrants an exception from the requirement of mandatory revocation and imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b). 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a).

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 362); November 1, 1995 (amendment 533); November 1, 2010 (amendment 747); November 1, 2025 (amendments 835 and 836).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,490 cases (173 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: United States v. Joseph Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Joseph Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 15× “§ 3553 (a)(4), as amended in 1994, a district court, in imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release, is required (in the absence of grounds for departure) to impose a term within the range indicated by U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 (Policy Statement). Prior to the…”
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “Insofar as Sindima held that courts must offer a convincing explanation to support a sentence outside the ranges identified in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, see 488 F.3d at 87 , 10 such an explanation need not be extensive or detailed.”
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “The Guidelines range for a Grade B violation with Simmons’s criminal history category of V is 18 to 24 months, lower than the range of 30 to 36 months to which the 16 revocation sentence was anchored.”
United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “3 See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. McKinney questioned the district court’s proposed guideline range of imprisonment; McKinney asserted that he “was never sentenced in Category VI” because the original sentencing court’s decision to depart downward pursuant to § 4A1.”
United States v. Harold Davis, 53 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1995). · cites it 5× “Some policy statements are binding on the district courts, but we concluded that U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 is not one of them. United States v.”
United States v. Damien Troy Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. The court noted this range, but stated that it was “inadequate to address the proper punishment necessary here.”
United States v. Darrell Baclaan, 948 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 10× “” Application Note 5 to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 provides: “The Commission leaves to the court the determination of whether evidence of drug usage established solely by laboratory analysis constitutes ‘possession of a controlled substance’ as set forth in 18 U.”
United States v. Desrick Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 3583 (e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). At the revocation hearing, the government recommended the district court revoke supervised release, explaining that to continue Warren’s supervised release would be an ineffective use of limited resources.”
United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “3, and recommend applicable sentencing ranges, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. As noted above, for Brooks's violations, the applicable range was 6 to 12 months' imprisonment, with a statutory maximum of two years.”
In Re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The court did so, stating: "I find that [the defendant] has violated the conditions of supervised release and his supervised release is revoked.”
United States v. Degroate, 940 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “” (3) Even if the Probation Office exceeded its lawfully delegated supervisory authority by unilaterally imposing a two‐day lock‐down, Degroate has failed to demonstrate that his 49 U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 cmt. n.4. 26 violations of this lock‐down condition affected the outcome of his…”
United States v. Mark Keith White, 416 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, *1316 comment, (n.l). White's presentence investigation report from his original sentencing hearing reflects that he fell within criminal history category II.”
Show all 1,490 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(1)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Thorne, 66 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(a) — 784 cases
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008). “Insofar as Sindima held that courts must offer a convincing explanation to support a sentence outside the ranges identified in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, see 488 F.3d at 87 , 10 such an explanation need not be extensive or detailed.”
United States v. Desrick Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013). “§ 3583 (e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). At the revocation hearing, the government recommended the district court revoke supervised release, explaining that to continue Warren’s supervised release would be an ineffective use of limited resources.”
United States v. Mary A. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018). “3, and recommend applicable sentencing ranges, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. As noted above, for Brooks's violations, the applicable range was 6 to 12 months' imprisonment, with a statutory maximum of two years.”
United States v. Mark Keith White, 416 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005). “See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, *1316 comment, (n.l). White's presentence investigation report from his original sentencing hearing reflects that he fell within criminal history category II.”
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(a)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). “The Guidelines range for a Grade B violation with Simmons’s criminal history category of V is 18 to 24 months, lower than the range of 30 to 36 months to which the 16 revocation sentence was anchored.”
United States v. Tomonta Simmons (4th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(a)(2) — 16 cases
United States v. Trung Dang, 907 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Gregory Virgil Fallin, 946 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Thomas Dennis, 35 F.4th 1116 (8th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Donald Jessie, 656 F. App'x 97 (6th Cir. 2016).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(a)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. John Jeffery Carr, 573 F. App'x 840 (11th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Michael Leggett, 320 F. App'x 381 (6th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Marcus Henry, 355 F. App'x 75 (7th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Ernst, 223 F. App'x 173 (3rd Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(b) — 4 cases
United States v. Antwan Webster, 426 F. App'x 406 (6th Cir. 2011).
LIVINGSTON v. United States (D.N.J. 2025).
LIVINGSTON v. United States (D.N.J. 2025).
United States v. Adams, 66 F. App'x 554 (6th Cir. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(b)(1) — 20 cases
United States v. Tomonta Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019). “The Guidelines range for a Grade B violation with Simmons’s criminal history category of V is 18 to 24 months, lower than the range of 30 to 36 months to which the 16 revocation sentence was anchored.”
United States v. Erick Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Jackie Busey, 11 F.4th 664 (8th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Elmarries Harris, 112 F.4th 624 (8th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Collins (10th Cir. 2017).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(b)(2) — 9 cases
United States v. Darrell Baclaan, 948 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1991). “” Application Note 5 to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 provides: “The Commission leaves to the court the determination of whether evidence of drug usage established solely by laboratory analysis constitutes ‘possession of a controlled substance’ as set forth in 18 U.”
United States v. Harold Davis, 53 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1995). “Some policy statements are binding on the district courts, but we concluded that U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 is not one of them. United States v.”
United States v. John William Forrester, 19 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 1994).
United States v. Wiley Hill, Jr., 48 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Roger D. Lewis, 998 F.2d 497 (7th Cir. 1993).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(b)(3)(A) — 8 cases
United States v. Darrell Tinsley, 334 F. App'x 296 (11th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Gregory Shockley (8th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Cotha Grant (3rd Cir. 2023).
United States v. Terry Wimberly (11th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Webb, 559 F. App'x 704 (10th Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(b)(l) — 6 cases
United States v. Labenz Turner, 572 F. App'x 771 (11th Cir. 2014).
United States v. McAllister, 508 F. App'x 703 (10th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Lee, 16 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir. 2001).
United States v. John Ellis, 577 F. App'x 192 (4th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Cannon, Daniel P., 253 F. App'x 590 (7th Cir. 2007).
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.