U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 227— SENTENCES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER B— PROBATION

18 U.S.C. § 3562

Imposition of a sentence of probation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Probation.—The court, in determining whether to impose a term of probation, and, if a term of probation is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term and the conditions of probation, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.(b)Effect of Finality of Judgment.—Notwithstanding the fact that a sentence of probation can subsequently be—(1) modified or revoked pursuant to the provisions of section 3564 or 3565;(2) corrected pursuant to the provisions of rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3742; or(3) appealed and modified, if outside the guideline range, pursuant to the provisions of section 3742;a judgment of conviction that includes such a sentence constitutes a final judgment for all other purposes.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1992; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3583, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4930.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Prior Provisions

For a prior section 3562, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3551 of this title.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted “of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” after “rule 35”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 38 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). · cites it 2× “See 18 U. S. C. §3562 (a); §3583(c). And so the SRA also authorizes courts, when imposing those sentences, to order an offender’s participation in cer tain programs and facilities.”
United States v. Thomas Alan Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed.”
United States v. Theresa Thornhill, 759 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (directing that the court, “in determining whether to impose a term of probation, and .”
United States v. Charles Kissinger, 309 F.3d 179 (3rd Cir. 2002). “§ 3583 (a) (supervised release); 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (a) (probation), and its revocation is heard by the judiciary.”
United States v. Gregory Sanford, 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021). “18 U.S.C. § 3562 (c) (emphases added). The government argued that the statutory exhaustion requirement, though not jurisdictional, is a mandatory claim-processing rule and must be enforced if invoked.”
United States v. Martin, 363 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2004). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (“[A] sentence of probation can subsequently be .”
United States v. John Doe, 79 F.3d 1309 (2d Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3562 (a) (“[t]he court, in determining .”
United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007). “2000) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (b); United States v. Dumont, 936 F.”
United States v. Bruce Cutler, 58 F.3d 825 (2d Cir. 1995). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3562 (a), 3553(a). That said, the potentially severe collateral consequences of Cutler’s probation are troubling.”
United States v. Lazaro Roman, 989 F.2d 1117 (11th Cir. 1993). “2d 115 (1992); 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (a). . The Guidelines employ two values, an Offense Level and a Criminal History Score, to quantify the relevant offense-based and offender-based characteristics.”
Donaldson v. State, 476 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). “18 U.S.C.A. § 3562 (West 2013); see also Skillern v.”
United States v. Anthony R. Conte, 99 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1996). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3562 (a). Those factors include the nature of the offense, see id.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.