Federal Environmental Offense Sentences in the District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025
In the District of New Jersey, 6 of the 22 people (27%) sentenced for environmental offenses in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 received a prison term. The median prison term among them was 0.5 months. All 22 pleaded guilty.
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025 › Environmental Offense: District of New Jersey
In brief: In the District of New Jersey, 6 of the 22 people (27%) sentenced for environmental offenses in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 received a prison term. The median prison term among them was 0.5 months. All 22 pleaded guilty.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 22 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.
Few Prison Terms, and Short Ones
The U.S. Sentencing Commission's offense type "Environmental" includes wildlife and pollution cases. 22 people were sentenced in this category in the District of New Jersey over fiscal years 2016 to 2025. That is less than 1% of the 6,441 people sentenced in the district.
6 of the 22 (27%) received a prison term, and 5 (23%) received probation only. Across all 94 districts, 28% of the 1,638 people in this category were sent to prison, which is about the same share.
Among those sent to prison, the median prison term was 0.5 months. A quarter received 2.4 months or more, and a quarter received 0 months or less. The all-districts median was 5 months. The median for all offenses in the district was 37 months.
Pleas and Plea Agreements
22 of 22 (100%) pleaded guilty, and none was convicted after a trial. Every guilty plea had a written plea agreement. The all-districts rate for this offense type was 98%, and the rate for all offenses in the district was 97%.
Position Against the Guideline Range
The guideline range is the sentence range calculated under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. 7 sentences (32%) were within the range. 9 (41%) were below the range at the government's request, and 6 (27%) were below the range without a government request. None was above the range.
For all districts, 50% of sentences in this category were within the range. The share here is lower. For all offenses in the district it was 37%.
No one had a mandatory minimum prison term recorded.
Fines Were More Common Than Supervised Release
A fine was ordered for 13 people (59%), and restitution for 2 (9%). Only 2 people (9%) were ordered to serve supervised release after prison, and the median term was 24 months.
Fines were therefore the more common financial penalty in these cases, while supervised release was uncommon. This is consistent with the large number of short sentences and probation-only sentences.
Which Guidelines Applied
The most common primary guideline was §2Q2.1 (Offenses Involving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants), with 12 people. §2Q1.2 (Mishandling of Hazardous or Toxic Substances or Pesticides) applied to 6, and §2Q1.3 (Mishandling of Other Environmental Pollutants) to 4.
In criminal history terms, 95% were in criminal history category I and 0% were in category VI.
Counts by Year
Fiscal years 2016 to 2019 account for 10 people, and fiscal years 2020 to 2025 account for 12. The largest single year was fiscal year 2019, with 7 people. Yearly counts are very small, and several years show no median because no one in that year had a prison term to report, so the table is not evidence of a trend.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2 | n/a | 2 of 2 |
| 2017 | 1 | 8 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2019 | 7 | n/a | 7 of 7 |
| 2020 | 2 | 1 months | 2 of 2 |
| 2021 | 1 | n/a | 1 of 1 |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 months | 3 of 3 |
| 2023 | 2 | n/a | 2 of 2 |
| 2024 | 1 | 2.9 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 months | 3 of 3 |
What These Records Leave Out
The data counts only people who were convicted and sentenced, so acquittals and dismissals are not in it. Prison terms are the terms imposed, not time served. Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey is in this district, but courts-martial are tried in military courts, not in this federal court.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the District of New Jersey (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "New Jersey") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Environmental" (22). 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 District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Firearms Sentences in the District of New Jersey, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Immigration Offense Sentences in the District of New Jersey, 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.