Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Does federal law count each charge in an indictment separately for sentencing in 18 U.S.C. §3553?
Executive Summary
Federal law does not mechanically treat every indictment count as an independent unit that must be punished separately; instead sentencing is governed by 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) together with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ grouping and multiple-count rules, which often aggregate related counts or provide incremental adjustments rather than simple per-count stacking [1] [2] [3]. Judges retain statutory discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. §3584, and courts routinely apply §3553(a) factors to decide whether separate convictions should produce separate punishment [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the question matters: the gap between indictment counting and sentencing reality
The underlying claim assumes a direct one-to-one translation from indictment counts to punishment, but the Federal Sentencing Guidelines specifically address “grouping” of counts to avoid disproportionate results when offenses reflect the same or substantially similar harm. These grouping rules (Guidelines §§3D1.1–3D1.5) instruct that closely related counts be treated as a single composite for offense-level calculation, whereas truly distinct harms can trigger incremental offense-level increases. The Sentencing Commission’s materials emphasize that the guidelines seek to minimize the effects of prosecutors’ charging decisions and to calibrate punishment to the substance of criminal conduct rather than the formal number of charges [1] [2] [3].
2. Statutory framework: §3553(a) sets the factors, §3584 governs concurrent/consecutive sentences
Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) directs sentencing courts to consider a set of objective factors — nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, and avoiding unwarranted disparity — rather than prescribing a fixed per-count arithmetic approach. Section 3584 and related statutory text give judges the authority to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences but do not mandate automatic per-count stacking. The combined statutory scheme therefore leaves substantial room for judicial judgment, informed but not controlled by guideline computations and by the grouping framework described by the Sentencing Commission [5] [4] [6].
3. How the Guidelines actually operate: grouping, units, and aggregate offense levels
Practical application of the Guidelines uses two complementary tools: grouping rules that treat closely related counts as a single offense level, and “multiple count” adjustments (assigning units) that add levels when separate harms justify incremental punishment. Under this system the most serious grouped count often supplies the base offense level, while additional counts increase the level by prescribed steps rather than by multiplying separate statutory maxima. Sentencing Commission training and reform proposals repeatedly stress this nuance, and academic critiques argue for narrowing or clarifying aggregate grouping to ensure consistency across offense types [1] [2] [3].
4. Case law and statutory reforms show judicial discretion and uneven results
Post-First Step Act litigation and other doctrinal debates reveal that courts sometimes differ on how §3553(a) factors and guideline grouping should operate in practice. Some courts interpret §3553(a) as mandatory in certain resentencing contexts, while others treat its application as discretionary; the result is circuit variation in how courts account for multiple counts and post-sentencing conduct. Defense advocates emphasize grouping and individualized §3553 analysis to limit stacked punishment; prosecutors emphasize separate counts to reflect distinct harms and protect public safety. The legislative and Commission materials reflect these competing agendas and the continuing move toward clarification [7] [8].
5. Bottom line for practitioners and defendants: counts matter, but context decides the sentence
The essential fact is that an indictment’s list of counts is a starting point, not an automatic sentence calculator: the Guidelines’ grouping/unit rules adjust raw counts into an offense level, §3553(a) factors shape the ultimate sentence, and §3584 allows judges to order consecutive or concurrent terms where justified. Practitioners must therefore litigate both guideline application (grouping/units) and §3553(a) considerations; stakeholders pushing for sentencing outcomes reflect predictable institutional agendas — defense actors favor aggregation and individualized consideration, prosecutors and victims often press for separate penalties for distinct harms [1] [5] [6].