U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1
Special Assessments – Organizations
A special assessment must be imposed on an organization in the amount prescribed by statute.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. This guideline applies if the defendant is an organization. It does not apply if the defendant is an individual. See §5E1.3 for special assessments applicable to individuals. 2. The following special assessments are provided by statute (see 18 U.S.C. § 3013):For Offenses Committed By Organizations On Or After April 24, 1996:
(A) $400, if convicted of a felony;
(B) $125, if convicted of a Class A misdemeanor;
(C) $50, if convicted of a Class B misdemeanor; or
(D) $25, if convicted of a Class C misdemeanor or an infraction.
For Offenses Committed By Organizations On Or After November 18, 1988 But Prior To April 24, 1996:
(E) $200, if convicted of a felony;
(F) $125, if convicted of a Class A misdemeanor;
(G) $50, if convicted of a Class B misdemeanor; or
(H) $25, if convicted of a Class C misdemeanor or an infraction.
For Offenses Committed By Organizations Prior To November 18, 1988:
(I) $200, if convicted of a felony;
(J) $100, if convicted of a misdemeanor.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 422). Amended effective November 1, 1997 (amendment 573); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases, 1991–2015 · leading case: United States v. Thomas P. Carroll, 346 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Thomas P. Carroll, 346 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2003). “’ ” This court ordinarily defers to the district court’s determination as to a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. See Application Note 5.”
United States v. Lisa Thomas, 315 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir. 2002). “” U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. “[T]he District Court’s decision whether to grant the adjustment is entitled to ‘great deference’ on review because ‘[t]he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility.”
United States v. Miguel Angel Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2002). “See also USSG § 8E1.1, comment (n.5) (determination of sentencing court entitled to great deference).”
United States v. Donald Edward Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1992). “He also argues that he has consistently accepted responsibility for his offense and should have received a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. We affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing.”
Mateo v. United States, 398 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2005). “See USSG § 8E1.1. Because of the quantity of drugs involved, Mateo was subject to a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence.”
United States v. Eararick Thurmon, Also Known as Iroc, United States of Am. v. Eararick Thurmon, Also Known as Iroc, 278 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2002). “4 at 128; see also U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1 (2001). Next, the district court compared Thur-mon’s conduct with the conduct of the other defendants in the conspiracy and found that Thurmon played a mitigating role in the offense, warranting a three-level reduction in his offense level.”
United States v. Hernandez, 134 F.3d 1435 (10th Cir. 1998). “) The United States and Hernandez “stipulated” that the latter had demonstrated a recognition and acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct and was, therefore, entitled to a three level reduction in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. Further, the United…”
United States v. Malcolm Frazier, 971 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1992). “OPINION LUTTIG, Circuit Judge: Malcolm Frazier appeals a sentencing decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denying him an acceptance of responsibility reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. He challenges the district court’s…”
United States v. Bullard, 13 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 1994). “1 Bullard contends that the district court erred in calculating the amount of the loss caused by his offense conduct 2 and by applying the November 1, 1989 version of U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1 which afforded.the opportunity for only a two-level downward adjustment of the sentencing…”
United States v. Edward L. Osborne, 948 F.2d 210 (6th Cir. 1991). “U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1 provides: (a)If the defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct, reduce the offense level by 2 levels.”
United States v. Matthew Trupiano, 11 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1993). “” U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1, application note 2. We might be more sympathetic to Trupi-ano’s claim that he accepted responsibility but for the fact that he did not admit to any of the essential elements of operating an illegal gambling business under 18 U.”
United States v. Marvin Dorsey, 61 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 1995). “See U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1. Level 81, coupled with the career offender mandatory Criminal History Category VI, produced a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months imprisonment.”
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.