Federal Forgery, Counterfeiting, and Copyright Sentences in the District of Arizona, FY2016–2025
17 people were sentenced in the District of Arizona for forgery, counterfeiting, or copyright offenses in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. 12 (71%) received a prison term, with a median of 12.5 months, and 5 (29%) received probation only. The median was lower than the 17.6 months for this offense type in
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the District of Arizona, FY2016–2025 › Forgery, Counterfeiting, and Copyright: District of Arizona
In brief: 17 people were sentenced in the District of Arizona for forgery, counterfeiting, or copyright offenses in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. 12 (71%) received a prison term, with a median of 12.5 months, and 5 (29%) received probation only. The median was lower than the 17.6 months for this offense type in all 94 districts.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 17 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.
Prison or Probation Only
12 of the 17 people (71%) received a prison term, and 5 (29%) received probation only, with no prison or other confinement. In all 94 districts, 77% of people in this category were sent to prison.
Among those sent to prison, the median prison term was 12.5 months. A quarter received 17.8 months or more, and a quarter received 10.1 months or less. The all-districts median was 17.6 months, and the median for all offenses in the District of Arizona was 9 months.
Prison terms are the terms imposed, not time served.
Guidelines Used in These Cases
"Forgery/Counter/Copyright" is the U.S. Sentencing Commission's offense category. In this district, 13 cases used §2B5.1 (Offenses Involving Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States), and 4 used §2B5.3 (Criminal Infringement of Copyright or Trademark).
Only people who were convicted and sentenced appear in this data. No mandatory minimum prison term applied to any of the 17 people.
Every Case Ended in a Guilty Plea
All 17 people (100%) pleaded guilty, and none was convicted after a trial. In all districts, 98% pleaded guilty.
94% of the guilty pleas had a written plea agreement, and 6% were straight pleas with no agreement. The records do not show the terms of the agreements.
Sentences and the Guideline Range
Under the Commission's rules, each case has a guideline range. 8 sentences (47%) were within it, which is the same share as in all districts for this offense type.
4 sentences (24%) were below the range at the government's request, and 4 (24%) were below it without a government request. 1 sentence (6%) was above the range.
For all offenses in this district, 35% of sentences were within the range.
Supervised Release, Fines, and History
12 people (71%) were ordered to serve supervised release after prison, with a median term of 36 months. A fine was ordered for 3 people (18%), and restitution for 6 (35%).
47% were in the lowest criminal history category I, and 6% were in the highest, category VI. Court-martial records have no criminal history field.
Most Cases Came Before 2020
14 people were sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2019, and 3 in fiscal years 2020 to 2025. These cases were less than 1% of the 47,716 people sentenced in the district.
The table lists the years that had cases, with 1 to 6 people each. In 2025, the median is n/a. With counts this small, a year's median should not be read as a trend.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2 | 60 months | 2 of 2 |
| 2017 | 2 | 15.3 months | 2 of 2 |
| 2018 | 4 | 15 months | 4 of 4 |
| 2019 | 6 | 11 months | 6 of 6 |
| 2023 | 1 | 12 months | 1 of 1 |
| 2025 | 2 | n/a | 2 of 2 |
Limits of the Records
The records do not describe what any person did, so they cannot show why some people received probation and others prison. They also do not show people who were not convicted.
The court-martial data lists these installations in the district: Davis-Monthan AFB, Fort Huachuca, Luke AFB, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. Their courts-martial are held in military courts, so none of these cases comes from a court-martial.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the District of Arizona (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "Arizona") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Forgery/Counter/Copyright" (17). 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 Arizona, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Immigration Offense Sentences in the District of Arizona, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the District of Arizona, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Drug Possession Sentences in the District of Arizona, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the District of Arizona, 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.