§2B3.3 Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2018
Of the 16 people sentenced in federal court under §2B3.3 in fiscal year 2018, 9 (56%) received a prison term, with a median of 12 months. Sentences were within the guideline range for 8 people (50%), which is about the same as the 51% for all guidelines that year and higher than the 46% for all year
· Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › §2B3.3 Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion › §2B3.3: FY2018
In brief: Of the 16 people sentenced in federal court under §2B3.3 in fiscal year 2018, 9 (56%) received a prison term, with a median of 12 months. Sentences were within the guideline range for 8 people (50%), which is about the same as the 51% for all guidelines that year and higher than the 46% for all years of §2B3.3.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 16 people sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2018. 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.
Within-Range Sentences in Fiscal Year 2018
In fiscal year 2018, 8 of the 16 sentences under §2B3.3 were within the guideline range. That is 50%. Below the range without a government request were 5 (31%), and below the range at the government's request were 2 (13%). Above the range was 1 (6%).
Across all years of §2B3.3 from fiscal year 2016 to 2025, 46% of sentences were within the range. For all guidelines in fiscal year 2018, the share was 51%. In fiscal year 2019, the next year, 64% of sentences under §2B3.3 were within the range.
Who Went to Prison and for How Long
In all, 9 people (56%) received a prison term, and 5 (31%) received probation only. Probation only means no prison and no other confinement.
The median prison term was 12 months. A quarter of those sent to prison received 15 months or more, and a quarter received 4 months or less. These are the terms imposed, not time served.
Supervised release after prison was ordered for 8 people (50%), with a median term of 18 months.
A Single Trial Among Mostly Guilty Pleas
In all, 15 of the 16 people (94%) pleaded guilty, and 1 was convicted after a trial. The median prison term after a guilty plea was 9 months. The person convicted at trial and sent to prison received 20 months.
A single trial case does not support a general comparison of plea and trial sentences. Every guilty plea (100%) had a written plea agreement, and no mandatory minimum prison term applied to any of the 16 people with that information recorded.
Fines, Restitution, and Criminal History
A fine was ordered for 3 people (19%), and restitution for 9 (56%). In the lowest criminal history category I were 81% of the group, and none were in the highest category VI. Court-martial records have no criminal history field.
Scope of the Guideline and Counting Rules
The Guidelines Manual titles §2B3.3 "Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion". The Sentencing Commission files all 16 cases under Extortion/Racketeering. The post counts people whose primary guideline was §2B3.3, which is the guideline that set the offense level for the most serious count.
The fiscal year ran from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Anyone who was acquitted or whose case was dismissed is not in this data.
All-Years and All-Guidelines Context
From fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 100 people were sentenced under §2B3.3. In that period, 61% went to prison, the median prison term was 13.9 months, and 94% pleaded guilty. Fiscal year 2018 had a lower share sent to prison than the all-years share, and a lower median.
For all guidelines in fiscal year 2018, 69,425 people were sentenced, the median prison term was 24 months, and 97% pleaded guilty. In fiscal year 2019, 11 people were sentenced under §2B3.3, with a median of 15 months. The table lists each year.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 18 | 12 months | 89% |
| 2017 | 6 | 10 months | 6 of 6 |
| 2018 | 16 | 12 months | 94% |
| 2019 | 11 | 15 months | 100% |
| 2020 | 13 | 12 months | 100% |
| 2021 | 10 | 13.7 months | 90% |
| 2022 | 5 | 24 months | 5 of 5 |
| 2023 | 10 | 4.5 months | 90% |
| 2024 | 6 | 17.7 months | 6 of 6 |
| 2025 | 5 | 21.4 months | 4 of 5 |
What Cannot Be Learned Here
The records do not describe the conduct behind any sentence. The crosswalk has no close court-martial counterpart for this guideline, so the numbers here are federal only.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2018 whose primary sentencing guideline was §2B3.3 (16), U.S. Sentencing Commission individual data files. The primary guideline is the one that set the offense level for the most serious count.
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)
- §2B3.3 Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion: Federal Sentences, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- §2B3.3 Blackmail and Similar Forms of Extortion: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2019 (previous or next fiscal year)
- How Often Federal Judges Sentence Outside the Guideline Range
- Mandatory Minimums: How Many Federal Sentences Are Set by Congress
- 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.