Federal Bribery and Corruption Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025
36 people were sentenced for bribery or corruption in the Eastern District of Arkansas in fiscal years 2016 to 2025, and 27 (75%) received prison terms with a median of 30 months (2.5 years). 15 sentences (42%) were below the guideline range at the government's request.
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY201 › Bribery and Corruption: Eastern District of Arkansas
In brief: 36 people were sentenced for bribery or corruption in the Eastern District of Arkansas in fiscal years 2016 to 2025, and 27 (75%) received prison terms with a median of 30 months (2.5 years). 15 sentences (42%) were below the guideline range at the government's request.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 36 people sentenced in federal court in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. Acquittals and dismissals come from a second source, the Federal Judicial Center's records of 753,808 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. It is part of the Federal Prosecution Analysis series, which builds on Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System. How the numbers were built: How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built.
Government Requests for Lower Sentences
Government requests account for the largest share of this group. 15 sentences (42%) were below the guideline range after such a request. A further 9 (25%) were below the range without one. 10 (28%) were within the range, and 2 (6%) were above it.
Across all 94 districts, 21% of bribery and corruption sentences were within the range. In this district, 55% of sentences for all offenses were within it. The data does not record the reason for a request.
Prison, Probation, and Median Length
27 of the 36 people went to prison. 8 (22%) were given probation only. For all districts, 3,259 people were sentenced, and 74% went to prison.
The 27 had a median term of 30 months. The longest quarter received 47 months or more, and the shortest quarter received 16 months or less. The median for all districts was 18 months, against 50 months for every offense in this district. Terms are sentences, not time served.
A mandatory minimum applied to 0 of the 36 people.
The Main Guidelines in These Cases
The Commission files each case under an offense type based on its primary guideline. Here, §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe) covered 18 people and §2B4.1 (Bribery in Procurement of Bank Loan and Other Commercial Bribery) covered 17. The last person was sentenced under §2C1.3 (Conflict of Interest).
Bribery and corruption made up less than 1% of the 4,942 people sentenced in the district.
Guilty Pleas and Trials
Guilty pleas were entered by 33 people (92%), and 3 were convicted after trials. Pleas came with a written agreement in every case. In all districts, 91% pleaded guilty in this offense type; in all offenses in this district, 98% did.
The median term was 28 months after a plea and 57 months after a trial. Only 2 trial defendants went to prison, so the trial median rests on very few cases.
Supervision, Fines, and Prior Record
25 people (69%) were ordered onto supervised release for a median of 24 months. 7 (19%) were fined and 8 (22%) were ordered to pay restitution.
Most of the group, 89%, had the lowest criminal history rating, and none had the highest. The court-martial system has no equivalent field.
Totals by Year
The district sentenced 15 people in fiscal years 2016 to 2019 and 21 in fiscal years 2020 to 2025. The busiest year was 2023, with 9 people. In 4 years only 1 person was sentenced. Medians in the table run from 12 months to 108 months, but these counts are too small to show a trend.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 3 | 30 months | 3 of 3 |
| 2017 | 4 | 108 months | 3 of 4 |
| 2018 | 1 | 60 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2019 | 7 | 16 months | 6 of 7 |
| 2020 | 1 | 12 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2021 | 3 | 35.5 months | 3 of 3 |
| 2022 | 6 | 36 months | 5 of 6 |
| 2023 | 9 | 24 months | 9 of 9 |
| 2024 | 1 | 33 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2025 | 1 | 33 months | 1 of 1 |
Limits on What Can Be Said
Little Rock AFB, Arkansas, is within the district. Its courts-martial are tried in military courts and are not counted here.
Only people convicted and sentenced are included. Acquittals, dismissals, and the facts of each case are outside this data.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the Eastern District of Arkansas (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "Arkansas East") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Bribery/Corruption" (36). Offense types are the Commission's OFFGUIDE categories.
Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30. No person, judge, or lawyer is identified in any of these records.
What to Keep in Mind
No parole in federal prison; credit for good conduct. Federal prison has no parole for crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987. A federal prisoner can earn up to 54 days of good conduct credit for each year of the sentence the judge imposed, which is about 15%. Some federal prisoners can also earn First Step Act time credits, but many offenses make a person ineligible. The numbers in this post are the sentences judges imposed, not the time people actually served.
Federal supervised release. Most federal prison sentences are followed by a term of supervised release that the judge sets as part of the sentence. A person who violates it can be sent back to prison. A court-martial cannot sentence anyone to supervision after release. Military parole and mandatory supervised release are decided later by a board, not by the judge at trial.
Who decides the sentence, and under what rules. Federal judges sentence every federal case. They must calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, which is advisory, and must impose any mandatory minimum the statute requires unless an exception applies. In courts-martial, the accused could choose sentencing by members until the rules changed. For cases in which every guilty finding is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023, a military judge sentences alone, within sentencing parameters. Courts-martial tried in 2024 and later include both old-rule and new-rule cases, and the data cannot tell them apart.
Time periods. Federal numbers are by federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), based on the sentencing date. The military numbers are by trial date. Neither source has the date of the offense, so a change in law shows up in either data set gradually.
How life sentences and "time served" are counted. In the federal numbers, a life sentence is counted as 470 months, and any other sentence longer than 470 months is counted as just under 470 months. A sentence of "time served" is counted as one day (0.03 months). Averages are affected by these rules; medians much less.
Related Analysis
- Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System (the background article)
- Federal Prosecution Analysis (all federal posts)
- How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built (sources and method)
- Federal Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Firearms Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Prison Offense Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the Eastern District of Arkansas, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles (source)
- Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants) (source)
About the author. Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts Where All The Bodies Are Buried and runs the Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.