Why Similar Federal Crimes Can Get Very Different Sentences

Two people who did roughly the same thing can walk out of federal court with very different sentences. One may get probation; another may get decades. The difference often comes down to the Sentencing Guidelines, mandatory minimums, and how much freedom the judge has in that case.

Can someone get more prison time for a drug crime than for murder? Yes. Can a drug sale 100 feet closer to a school add years to a sentence? Yes. Examples like these are everywhere.

Sentencing disparity means people with similar conduct getting very different sentences. It has been a thorn in the side of our justice system for as long as there have been courts. Lawmakers have tried to fix it with mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, and complicated formulas, yet judges still have room to decide, even when the law tries to limit it.

Real cases put the problem in perspective and may point toward some solutions. First, though, a few basics.

How Criminal Sentencing Works

Sentencing Examples

After a guilty plea or a guilty verdict at trial, the case moves to sentencing. The judge sets a hearing date, usually a few months later.

At the hearing, the judge hears from the prosecutor, the defense, and the defendant. Victims may speak too. Then the judge imposes a sentence meant to fit the crime.

Punishments can include:

• Prison time
• Fines
• Probation (supervision in the community instead of prison)
• Restitution (paying a victim back for a loss)
• Community service
• Treatment, such as drug or alcohol treatment or anger management
• The death penalty, in rare cases under federal law and in some states

Some state courts can also give a suspended sentence, meaning prison time that only kicks in if you break certain rules. Federal courts generally cannot suspend a prison sentence.

The law sets a range of possible sentences for each crime. Within that range, the judge can consider things like:

• Your criminal history
• What the crime involved
• The harm to any victims
• Your personal, financial, and family circumstances
• Whether you show genuine remorse

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984. The Commission wrote the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to make sentences more uniform from court to court.

The Guidelines started out mandatory. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker that they must be only advisory, to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a jury.

The Guidelines mainly look at two things: what you did (the offense level) and your past record (the criminal history category). The judge finds where those two meet on the Sentencing Table to get a range.

For example, offense level 22 with criminal history category I gives a range of 41 to 51 months. The same offense level with category VI (a long record) gives 84 to 105 months.

Specific facts can move the offense level down or up. It goes down if you accept responsibility, for example, and up for things like hate crimes or very vulnerable victims.

Two Supreme Court Cases Where Judges Went Below the Guidelines

In both of these cases, the trial judge gave a sentence well below the Guidelines, and the Supreme Court backed the judge.

• Gall v. United States (2007). Brian Gall joined a drug ring selling ecstasy while in college. After seven months he quit. He never sold or used drugs again and worked steadily after graduating. About three years later he pleaded guilty. The presentence report (PSR), the probation office's report to the judge, said the Guidelines called for 30 to 37 months, but the judge gave him 36 months of probation. The judge reasoned that prison was not needed because Gall left the drug ring on his own, obeyed the law afterward, and was not a danger to society. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the sentence strayed too far from the Guidelines. The Supreme Court reinstated probation, holding that the Guidelines are advisory and the sentence was reasonable.
• Kimbrough v. United States (2007). At the time, crack cocaine was punished as harshly as 100 times as much powder cocaine (the "100-to-1 ratio"). Derrick Kimbrough faced 19 to 22 years under the Guidelines. With powder cocaine, he would have faced about 8 to 9 years. The judge, noting how unfairly the Guidelines treated crack, gave him 15 years. The Fourth Circuit threw out the sentence, finding the judge had not followed the Guidelines. The Supreme Court reinstated it. It again noted that the Guidelines are only advisory, held that judges may consider the unfairness of the 100-to-1 crack-powder ratio when choosing a sentence, and found the 15-year sentence reasonable.

Congress later cut the crack-to-powder ratio to 18-to-1 in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

When Mandatory Minimums Leave No Room

In other federal cases, the punishment seems far too harsh for the facts, and the judge had little or no power to change it.

• Chris Young. Chris grew up in deep poverty and a broken home and began selling drugs as a teenager. He was arrested in a drug sweep with about 30 other people. He turned down a 14-year plea deal because it was more than some more serious people in the case were getting. As trial got closer, the plea offers only got worse. He was convicted at trial in 2014. Because of two prior drug convictions, the judge had to give him life in prison. The judge called him a low-level dealer, "barely on the totem pole," but had no choice under the mandatory minimum. President Trump commuted (shortened) his sentence in January 2021.
• Jodi Richter. Jodi was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at 12, married young, and had two children. She became addicted to methamphetamine. She earned a college degree and became a nurse, but her addiction led to her arrest in a meth ring. Her role was minor, yet she was sentenced to 15 years, partly because of two prior possession charges.
• Arlana Moore. As a teenager, Arlana was prescribed "weight loss" pills similar to meth, which led to addiction. She got probation twice for possession. Later she bought pseudoephedrine pills at the pharmacy for her dealer, who used them to make meth. Her dealer was under federal investigation, and Arlana was indicted for taking part in a meth conspiracy. Because of her two prior convictions, she received a mandatory sentence of life without parole in 2010. President Obama commuted her sentence in 2016, with release set for October 2018.

Update (October 2026): The First Step Act of 2018 (§ 401) changed the federal "three strikes" drug rule. Two prior "serious drug felony" convictions now trigger a 25-year mandatory minimum instead of mandatory life, and fewer old convictions count. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

What These Cases Teach

These stories show how mandatory minimums and the Guidelines can upend lives.

They also show how hard it is to balance uniform sentences against a judge's freedom to fit the punishment to the person. Should someone like Arlana really have been sent away for life?

And they show that addiction is a health problem as much as a crime problem. Prison alone does not cure it, and treatment may have a role to play.

President Obama's commutation of Arlana's life sentence offers hope to others serving very long sentences. If someone you love is serving a sentence that looks like these, start by gathering the judgment (the court's written sentencing order), the case's docket number, and the PSR if the client has a copy. Those papers show which laws drove the sentence and whether any later change might apply.

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