Federal Bribery and Corruption Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, FY2016–2025
11 people were sentenced for bribery or corruption offenses in the Southern District of Indiana in fiscal years 2016 to 2024. 9 of them (82%) received a prison term, with a median of 12 months. For all 94 federal districts, the median in this offense type was 18 months.
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, FY201 › Bribery and Corruption: Southern District of Indiana
In brief: 11 people were sentenced for bribery or corruption offenses in the Southern District of Indiana in fiscal years 2016 to 2024. 9 of them (82%) received a prison term, with a median of 12 months. For all 94 federal districts, the median in this offense type was 18 months.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 11 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.
A Short Median Prison Term
Among the 9 people sent to prison, the median prison term was 12 months. A quarter received 12 months or more, and a quarter received 10 months or less. The quartile figures of 12 months and 10 months are close to the median.
The median for all 94 districts was 18 months, so the median in this district was lower. For all offenses in the Southern District of Indiana, the median was 70 months. The 2 people who received probation only (18%) had no prison or other confinement.
Primary Guidelines
Bribery/Corruption is the U.S. Sentencing Commission's category. Its most common primary guideline here was §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe), with 8 people. Each of 3 other guidelines had 1 person: §2B4.1 (Bribery in Procurement of Bank Loan and Other Commercial Bribery), §2C1.2 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Gratuity), and §2C1.8 (Making, Receiving, or Failing to Report a Contribution, Donation, or Expenditure in Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act).
The records do not say whether any person held public office.
Sentences Mostly Within or Below the Range
55% of sentences (6 people) were within the advisory guideline range. 36% (4 people) were below the range at the government's request, and 9% (1 person) were below it without a government request. None were above the range.
For all 94 districts, 21% of bribery and corruption sentences were within the range. For all offenses in this district, it was 43%. No mandatory minimum prison term applied to any of the 11 people (0%).
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 3 | 12 months | 3 of 3 |
| 2017 | 1 | 0 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2019 | 1 | 33 months | 0 of 1 |
| 2020 | 1 | 30 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2022 | 2 | 11 months | 2 of 2 |
| 2024 | 3 | 12 months | 3 of 3 |
One Trial
10 of 11 people (91%) pleaded guilty, and 1 person was convicted after a trial. For all 94 districts, 91% pleaded guilty. The median prison term was 12 months after a guilty plea and 33 months for the single person sent to prison after trial.
One person cannot show how plea and trial sentences differ in general. All of those who pleaded guilty had a written plea agreement (100%).
Fines, Restitution, and Supervision
A fine was ordered for 8 people (73%), and restitution for 4 (36%). 9 people (82%) were ordered to serve supervised release after prison, with a median term of 24 months.
All 11 people (100%) were in the lowest criminal history category, category I. Court-martial records have no criminal history field.
Counts by Year
5 people were sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2019 and 6 in fiscal years 2020 to 2025. Yearly counts range from 1 to 3 people. The table includes a year with a median of 0 months and a year with a median of 33 months, each based on 1 person. These counts show no trend.
Bribery and corruption cases were less than 1% of the 4,205 people sentenced in this district in fiscal years 2016 to 2025.
What the Records Cannot Show
The data covers only people who were convicted and sentenced. Acquittals and dismissals are not in it. Prison terms listed are those imposed, not time served.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the Southern District of Indiana (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "Indiana South") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Bribery/Corruption" (11). 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 Southern District of Indiana, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Firearms Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Robbery Sentences in the Southern District of Indiana, 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.