U.S.S.G. § 8D1.4
Recommended Conditions of Probation – Organizations
§8D1.4. Recommended Conditions of Probation – Organizations (Policy Statement)
(a) The court may order the organization, at its expense and in the format and media specified by the court, to publicize the nature of the offense committed, the fact of conviction, the nature of the punishment imposed, and the steps that will be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar offenses.
(b) If probation is imposed under §8D1.1, the following conditions may be appropriate:
(1) The organization shall develop and submit to the court an effective compliance and ethics program consistent with §8B2.1 (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program). The organization shall include in its submission a schedule for implementation of the compliance and ethics program.
(2) Upon approval by the court of a program referred to in paragraph (1), the organization shall notify its employees and shareholders of its criminal behavior and its program referred to in paragraph (1). Such notice shall be in a form prescribed by the court.
(3) The organization shall make periodic submissions to the court or probation officer, at intervals specified by the court, (A) reporting on the organization's financial condition and results of business operations, and accounting for the disposition of all funds received, and (B) reporting on the organization's progress in implementing the program referred to in paragraph (1). Among other things, reports under subparagraph (B) shall disclose any criminal prosecution, civil litigation, or administrative proceeding commenced against the organization, or any investigation or formal inquiry by governmental authorities of which the organization learned since its last report.
(4) The organization shall notify the court or probation officer immediately upon learning of (A) any material adverse change in its business or financial condition or prospects, or (B) the commencement of any bankruptcy proceeding, major civil litigation, criminal prosecution, or administrative proceeding against the organization, or any investigation or formal inquiry by governmental authorities regarding the organization.
(5) The organization shall submit to: (A) a reasonable number of regular or unannounced examinations of its books and records at appropriate business premises by the probation officer or experts engaged by the court; and (B) interrogation of knowledgeable individuals within the organization. Compensation to and costs of any experts engaged by the court shall be paid by the organization.
(6) The organization shall make periodic payments, as specified by the court, in the following priority: (A) restitution; (B) fine; and (C) any other monetary sanction.
Commentary
Application Note:
1. In determining the conditions to be imposed when probation is ordered under §8D1.1, the court should consider the views of any governmental regulatory body that oversees conduct of the organization relating to the instant offense. To assess the efficacy of a compliance and ethics program submitted by the organization, the court may employ appropriate experts who shall be afforded access to all material possessed by the organization that is necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the proposed program. The court should approve any program that appears reasonably calculated to prevent and detect criminal conduct, as long as it is consistent with §8B2.1 (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program), and any applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.Periodic reports submitted in accordance with subsection (b)(3) should be provided to any governmental regulatory body that oversees conduct of the organization relating to the instant offense.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 422). Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 673); November 1, 2010 (amendment 744).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: United States v. Merlino, 349 F.3d 144 (3rd Cir. 2003).
United States v. Merlino, 349 F.3d 144 (3rd Cir. 2003). “It is, we suggest, a somewhat pyrrhic victory, for it appears, at least to us, that under U.S.S.G. § 8D1.4, Lutz’s offense level and, hence, his guideline range would not change.”
United States v. Greenpeace, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “Second, even if I were to consider the Sentencing Guidelines— which are inapplicable to Class B misdemeanors—persuasive to frame appropriate conditions of probation for Greenpeace, access to business records is not required as a condition of probation under USSG § 8D1.”
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 318 F. Supp. 2d 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “See U.S.S.G. § 8D1.4. The grouping rules depend on the offense-level system of the guidelines themselves, and thus cannot simply be transferred to the coordination of a federal sentence with a state sentence for a state crime that does not come within the guideline system.”
United States v. Medina-Castellanos, 359 F. App'x 404 (4th Cir. 2010). “Therefore, the district court properly treated the three counts as *408 separate groups and applied USSG § 8D1.4 in determining Medina-Castella-nos’ combined offense level.”
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.