Federal Environmental Offense Sentences in the Western District of New York, FY2016–2025
16 people were sentenced for environmental offenses in the Western District of New York, with cases recorded in fiscal years 2016 to 2023. 12 of them (75%) received probation only, and 4 (25%) received a prison term. In all 94 federal districts, 28% of people in this offense type were sent to prison
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the Western District of New York, FY201 › Environmental Offense: Western District of New York
In brief: 16 people were sentenced for environmental offenses in the Western District of New York, with cases recorded in fiscal years 2016 to 2023. 12 of them (75%) received probation only, and 4 (25%) received a prison term. In all 94 federal districts, 28% of people in this offense type were sent to prison.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 16 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.
Probation Was the Usual Sentence
12 of the 16 people (75%) received probation only, with no prison or other confinement. 4 (25%) received a prison term. The share sent to prison was about the same as the 28% across all 94 districts.
Among the 4 sent to prison, the median prison term was 1.3 months. A quarter received 6.4 months or more, and a quarter received 0 months or less. The median across all 94 districts was 5 months. For all offenses in the Western District of New York, it was 41 months.
Wildlife and Hazardous Substance Cases
The U.S. Sentencing Commission's "Environmental" offense type includes cases about wildlife, plants, and pollution. The most common primary guideline was §2Q2.1 (Offenses Involving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants), with 8 people. Next was §2Q1.2 (Mishandling of Hazardous or Toxic Substances or Pesticides), with 5 people.
2 people were sentenced under §2Q1.3 (Mishandling of Other Environmental Pollutants), and 1 under §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact). These cases were less than 1% of the 4,205 people sentenced in the district in fiscal years 2016 to 2025.
Fines Were Common
A fine was ordered for 11 of the 16 people (69%). Restitution was ordered for 5 (31%). Supervised release after prison was ordered for 3 people (19%), with a median term of 12 months.
No mandatory minimum prison term applied to anyone in this group (0%). On criminal history, 94% were in the lowest category, and 0% were in the highest. Court-martial records have no criminal history field, so this cannot be compared with military cases.
Position Against the Guideline Range
8 people (50%) were sentenced within the guideline range. 5 (31%) were below the range at the government's request, and 3 (19%) were below it without a request. None were above the range.
In all 94 districts, 50% of sentences in this offense type were within the range, the same share as here. For all offenses in this district, 42% were within the range.
Pleas
All 16 people (100%) pleaded guilty, and every plea had a written plea agreement. No one was convicted after a trial. In all 94 districts, 98% of people in this offense type pleaded guilty.
Because the data covers only people who were convicted and sentenced, it does not show environmental cases that ended in an acquittal or a dismissal.
Counts by Year
Fiscal years 2016 to 2019 had 11 people, and fiscal years 2020 to 2025 had 5 people. The table lists only the years with cases, and each has between 1 and 4 people. The table shows no cases after fiscal year 2023.
The table gives a median for only 2 of the years: 1.3 months in fiscal year 2018 and 9 months in fiscal year 2022. Counts this small do not show a trend.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 4 | n/a | 4 of 4 |
| 2017 | 3 | n/a | 3 of 3 |
| 2018 | 4 | 1.3 months | 4 of 4 |
| 2021 | 1 | n/a | 1 of 1 |
| 2022 | 3 | 9 months | 3 of 3 |
| 2023 | 1 | n/a | 1 of 1 |
What the Records Cannot Show
The records do not describe the facts of any case, the harm to the environment, or the reasons for any sentence. Prison terms are the terms imposed, not time served.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the Western District of New York (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "New York West") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Environmental" (16). 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 Western District of New York, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the Western District of New York, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the Western District of New York, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Firearms Sentences in the Western District of New York, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Immigration Offense Sentences in the Western District of New York, 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.