What the Sentencing Commission Proposed in 2017, and What Became Law

In April 2017, the U.S. Sentencing Commission heard public comment on lowering sentences for first-time offenders, changing how criminal history is counted, and protecting the "acceptance of responsibility" reduction, the lower offense level for admitting guilt. Two of those ideas later took effect in other forms, so the hearing still helps explain the guidelines people are sentenced under today.

Update (October 2026): Some of these ideas later became part of the guidelines in different forms. The acceptance of responsibility change took effect November 1, 2018, as Amendment 810. A first-offender reduction took effect November 1, 2023, as the "zero-point offender" adjustment in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The guidelines have been amended many times since 2017, including major changes in 2025 and more set to take effect November 1, 2026, so always check the current Guidelines Manual.

The April 2017 proposals

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency that writes the guidelines, scheduled a public hearing for April 18, 2017 on proposed changes to the federal sentencing guidelines. According to the original post, the Commission was back to work after the Senate confirmed two more Sentencing Commissioners. The proposals included:

1. A lower offense level for first-time offenders. The Commission was considering two options:

   • Option 1: a 1-level decrease from the offense level figured under Chapters Two and Three of the guidelines.
   • Option 2: a 2-level decrease if the final offense level under Chapters Two and Three was below 16, or a 1-level decrease if it was 16 or higher.

2. No criminal history points for juvenile convictions. Convictions before age 18 would still count if the person was convicted as an adult.

3. No extra criminal history points for revocations. Time imposed when probation, parole, supervised release, special parole, or mandatory release is revoked would no longer add points.

4. Acceptance of responsibility. Under the guideline at the time, a judge could deny the acceptance reduction if a defendant "falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct" the court finds true. Some courts denied it whenever a defendant lost an objection. The proposal said a defendant who makes a "nonfrivolous challenge" to relevant conduct is not automatically barred from the reduction.

Would the changes be retroactive?

The proposals did not address retroactivity. We expected to learn more when the Commission voted. Retroactivity means whether a change helps people who were already sentenced. If the Commission does not make an amendment retroactive, people already sentenced generally cannot use it to get a lower sentence. The exception is a "clarifying" amendment, and none of these proposals was a clarifying amendment. (For an example of a retroactive change, see our post on the Fair Sentencing Act.)

The Commission considers guideline amendments every year. Amendments generally take effect on November 1 unless Congress acts to stop them. The guideline that lists which amendments are retroactive is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). If an amendment on that list lowers your range, the request for a lower sentence is made by motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.