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.
What are typical sentencing ranges for multiple felony convictions under federal law?
Executive summary
Typical federal sentencing ranges are set by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which produce a guideline range from an offense level (1–43) and a criminal history category; judges then consider those ranges along with statutory limits and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors [1] [2]. The Sentencing Commission recently overhauled the Guidelines with amendments effective November 1, 2025 that change how departures/variances and specific offense provisions operate — a shift that affects how multiple felony convictions are combined and how judges arrive at a final term [3] [4].
1. How federal guideline ranges are calculated — the basic machinery
Federal guideline ranges come from a grid that pairs an offense level (there are 43 levels) with a criminal history score/category; that grid yields a recommended prison range which judges consult when sentencing felony or Class A misdemeanor convictions [1]. The Sentencing Commission publishes an annual Guidelines Manual (now the 2025 edition) containing offense-specific offense levels, adjustments, and policy statements that plug into that grid [2].
2. Multiple convictions: grouping rules, combined offense level, and criminal history
When an individual is convicted of multiple federal offenses, the Guidelines contain "grouping" rules and arithmetic for combining counts into a single combined offense level; that combined level then maps with the defendant’s criminal history to a guideline range (the detailed rules and worksheets are in the Guidelines Manual) [2] [5]. Available reporting explains that practitioners use worksheets and the Manual’s text to determine the applicable offense level, criminal history score, and resulting guideline range [5] [1]. The 2025 Manual and adopted amendments are the operative sources for these procedures [2] [3].
3. Statutory maximums, mandatory minimums, and judicial discretion
Even when the Guidelines yield a recommended range, statutory maximums or mandatory minimum sentences in the criminal statutes can override or limit the practical options at sentencing; judges also must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing a sentence, which can produce a variance from the guideline range [1] [4]. The 2025 amendments emphasize a streamlined two-step process by eliminating formal “departures” in the operative text and focusing sentencing arguments on variances under § 3553(a), which affects how judges justify sentences above or below guideline ranges [4].
4. What changed in 2025 and why it matters for multiple counts
The 2025 amendments—submitted to Congress and published by the Commission—make structural changes, including removing departures and resolving various circuit splits, and update offense provisions (e.g., firearms, drug conversions) that feed into offense levels used when multiple counts are combined [3] [6]. Those revisions can change the offense-level math for certain combined convictions (for example, changes to drug conversion tables or firearm enhancements), so a combined guideline for multiple felonies under the new Manual may differ materially from prior years [3] [7].
5. Range examples and variability — why there’s no single “typical” sentence
There is no single typical range for “multiple felony convictions” because the grid outcome depends on: the base offense levels of the underlying offenses, enhancements and adjustments (role, weapon, loss amount, etc.), grouping rules, and the defendant’s criminal history — all of which the Manual specifies and which were revised in 2025 [1] [2]. Additionally, judges retain discretion to impose variances and must obey statutory minima/maxima; empirical practice (e.g., how often variances occur) informed the Commission’s reform decisions [4].
6. Practical takeaway for defendants and lawyers
Practitioners must consult the current [8] Guidelines Manual and adopted amendments to compute combined offense levels and projected ranges, use the Commission’s worksheets, and evaluate statutory constraints and § 3553(a) arguments — especially now that departures are largely removed from the operative text and variances are the principal vehicle for non‑guideline outcomes [2] [4]. Training materials and the Commission’s website provide resources and the official adopted amendments and rationale [5] [3].
7. Competing viewpoints and limitations in the reporting
The Sentencing Commission presents the amendments as promoting uniformity and reflecting contemporary practice; legal commentators note the changes could increase judicial reliance on variances and require adaptation by courts and counsel [3] [9]. Some practitioner write-ups interpret the overhaul as streamlining sentencing and resolving circuit splits, while others emphasize uncertainty during the transition and the importance of statutory constraints — available sources do not quantify how combined-sentence averages will shift nationwide after the 2025 changes [6] [10].