18 U.S.C. § 3561

Sentence of probation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to a term of probation unless—(1) the offense is a Class A or Class B felony and the defendant is an individual;(2) the offense is an offense for which probation has been expressly precluded; or(3) the defendant is sentenced at the same time to a term of imprisonment for the same or a different offense that is not a petty offense.(b)Domestic Violence Offenders.—A defendant who has been convicted for the first time of a domestic violence crime shall be sentenced to a term of probation if not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The term “domestic violence crime” means a crime of violence for which the defendant may be prosecuted in a court of the United States in which the victim or intended victim is the spouse, former spouse, intimate partner, former intimate partner, child, or former child of the defendant, or any other relative of the defendant.(c)Authorized Terms.—The authorized terms of probation are—(1) for a felony, not less than one nor more than five years;(2) for a misdemeanor, not more than five years; and(3) for an infraction, not more than one year.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1992; amended Pub. L. 99–646, § 10(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3593; Pub. L. 100–182, § 7, Dec. 7, 1987, 101 Stat. 1267; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXVIII, § 280004, title XXXII, § 320921(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2096, 2130; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(c)(1), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3509.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

For a prior section 3561, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3551 of this title.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–294 struck out “or any relative defendant, child, or former child of the defendant,” before “or any other relative of the defendant”.

1994—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 103–322, § 280004, inserted before period at end “that is not a petty offense”.

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 103–322, § 320921(a), added subsec. (b) and redesignated former subsec. (b) as (c).

1987—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 100–182 inserted “and the defendant is an individual” after “Class B felony”.

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–646 struck out at end “The liability of a defendant for any unexecuted fine or other punishment imposed as to which probation is granted shall be fully discharged by the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of probation.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.

Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–182 applicable with respect to offenses committed after Dec. 7, 1987, see section 26 of Pub. L. 100–182, set out as a note under section 3006A of this title.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–646, § 10(b), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3593, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the taking effect of such section 3561(a) [Nov. 1, 1987].”

Effective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 246 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: United States v. Fidel Castro-Verdugo

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Fidel Castro-Verdugo (2014) ca9 · cites it 12× “At sentencing, the district court imposed a period of probation along with a stayed custodial sentence, thereby exceeding the court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (a)(3). In 2013, Defendant again was convicted of illegal reentry which, in addition to constituting a new…”

United States v. James Little (2023) cadc · cites it 10× “Pushing back, the Government says 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (a)(3) is the kind of specific exception contemplated by § 3551(a), allowing a sentencing court to impose probation and imprisonment for a single petty offense.”

Arizona v. United States (2012) scotus · cites it 2× “); 18 U. S. C. §3561 . State law, by contrast, rules out probation as a possible sentence (and also eliminates the possibility of a pardon).”

United States v. H. Ty Warner (2015) ca7 · cites it 4× “And Warner was eligible for proba- tion under 18 U.S.C. § 3561 . It was therefore up to the district court to select an ap- propriate sentence in accordance with the factors in 18 U.”

United States v. Lopez-Pastrana (2018) ca1 · cites it 3× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (a)(3). 6 Although a *22 separate statutory provision permits courts to impose most of the conditions listed in § 3563(b) in the context of supervised release, see 18 U.”

United States v. Novenda L. Cook (1989) ca4 · cites it 4× “The district court rejected Cook’s contention that she was entitled to consideration for probation, concluding that Cook’s offense was a Class B felony at the time of the offense and thus pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3561 (a) (West Supp.1989) she *674 was not entitled to be…”

United States v. Prows (2006) ca10 · cites it 2× “The government raises three arguments on its appeal: (1) the suspended execution of Mr. Prows’ sentence is contrary to law because the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act repealed the prior statutory authority to suspend sentences; (2) Mr.”

United States v. Weikert (2007) ca1 · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. §§ 3561 , 3563. Supervised release, by contrast, is a period of community supervision imposed by the court to be completed after release from a jail or prison sentence, 18 U.”

United States v. Wilkinson (2010) ca4 · cites it 2× “Additionally, the PSR stated that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (c)(1), Wilkinson was eligible for not less than 1 nor more than 5 years' probation.”

United States v. Stephen Remy Mueller (2006) ca9 · cites it 4× “The question presented in this case is whether the district court is authorized to order probation under the probation stat *888 ute, 18 U.S.C. § 3561 , for a defendant convicted of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Marjorie J. Jacobs (1990) ca3 · cites it 4× “1990) that came into effect after the defendant, Marjorie Jacobs committed the offense from rendering her eligible for probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (1985 & Supp.1990). Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v.”

United States v. Martin (2004) ca1 · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3561 governs imposition of probation pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.”

Show all 246 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 3561(b) — 1 case

United States v. Granderson (1994) scotus

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.