Federal Forgery, Counterfeiting, and Copyright Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, FY2016–2025
From fiscal years 2016 to 2022, 10 people in the Eastern District of Louisiana were sentenced for forgery, counterfeiting, or copyright offenses. Only 3 (30%) received a prison term, and 5 (50%) received probation only. For 7 of the 10, the sentence was below the guideline range without a government
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, FY20 › Forgery, Counterfeiting, and Copyright: Eastern District of Louisiana
In brief: From fiscal years 2016 to 2022, 10 people in the Eastern District of Louisiana were sentenced for forgery, counterfeiting, or copyright offenses. Only 3 (30%) received a prison term, and 5 (50%) received probation only. For 7 of the 10, the sentence was below the guideline range without a government request.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 10 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.
Below the Guideline Range, Mostly Without a Government Request
The guideline range is the sentence range the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines produce for a case. In this offense type, 7 of the 10 people (70%) received a sentence below the range without a government request. Another 2 (20%) were below the range at the government's request.
Only 1 person (10%) received a sentence within the range, and none was above it.
For all 94 federal districts in this offense type, 47% of sentences were within the range. For all offenses in the Eastern District of Louisiana, 56% were within the range.
Prison and Probation
Of the 10 people, 3 (30%) received a prison term and 5 (50%) received probation only, with no prison or other confinement. The sheet does not list how the other 2 people were sentenced.
Nationally, 1,994 people were sentenced in this offense type, and 77% were sent to prison. The share in this district was lower.
Among the 3 sent to prison, the median prison term was 37 months (3.1 years). A quarter received 39 months or more, and a quarter received 23.6 months or less. With 3 people, these figures are small-group numbers. The national median for this offense type was 17.6 months, and the district's median for all offenses was 60 months.
Which Guidelines Applied?
"Forgery/Counter/Copyright" is one of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's offense types, assigned by the main guideline used at sentencing.
The most common primary guideline was §2B5.3 (Criminal Infringement of Copyright or Trademark), used in 7 cases. The other 3 cases used §2B5.1 (Offenses Involving Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States).
Pleas and Plea Agreements
All 10 people (100%) pleaded guilty, and 0 were convicted after a trial. Every guilty plea (100%) came with a written plea agreement, and 0% were straight pleas.
A mandatory minimum prison term applied to 0 of the 10 people with that information recorded.
Fines, Restitution, and Supervised Release
Restitution was ordered for 6 people (60%), and a fine for 4 (40%). Supervised release after prison was ordered for 3 (30%), with a median term of 36 months.
By criminal history, 70% were in the lowest category, category I, and 0% were in the highest, category VI. Court-martial records have no criminal history field.
Timing and What the Records Cannot Show
These cases were less than 1% of the 2,953 people sentenced in the district in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. Of the 10, 8 were sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2019 and 2 in fiscal years 2020 to 2025. The table shows 7 people in fiscal year 2016, 1 in 2019, and 2 in 2022.
With counts this small, the yearly figures are not trends. The Commission counts only people who were convicted and sentenced, so acquittals and dismissals are not in the data. Prison terms are the terms imposed, not time served, and the records do not explain why most sentences were below the range.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 7 | 25.6 months | 7 of 7 |
| 2019 | 1 | n/a | 1 of 1 |
| 2022 | 2 | 37 months | 2 of 2 |
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "Louisiana East") in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 whose offense type was "Forgery/Counter/Copyright" (10). 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 Louisiana, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- Federal Drug Trafficking Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Firearms Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, FY2016–2025 (same district, other offense type)
- Federal Immigration Offense Sentences in the Eastern District of Louisiana, 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.