> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # §2D2.1 Unlawful Possession: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2017 - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-guideline-2d2-1-unlawful-possession-fy2017/ - Published: 2026-11-04T10:25:41.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-04T10:25:41.000Z - Description: Of the 213 people sentenced under §2D2.1 in fiscal year 2017, 132 (62%) received probation only and 77 (36%) received a prison term, with a median of 2 months. A fine was ordered for 65 people (31%). Guilty pleas were 98%. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Federal [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) › [§2D2.1 Unlawful Possession](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-guideline-2d2-1-unlawful-possession/) › §2D2.1: FY2017 **In brief:** Of the 213 people sentenced under §2D2.1 in fiscal year 2017, 132 (62%) received probation only and 77 (36%) received a prison term, with a median of 2 months. A fine was ordered for 65 people (31%). Guilty pleas were 98%. Updated November 4, 2026 · Sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission and Federal Judicial Center, fiscal years 2016–2025 This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 213 people sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2017\. 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](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) series, which builds on [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/). How the numbers were built: [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/). ## Fines Were Common Where Restitution Was Not In fiscal year 2017, a fine was ordered for 65 of the 213 people sentenced under §2D2.1 (31%). Restitution was ordered for 2 people (less than 1%). The records do not give fine amounts. They show only how many people had a fine ordered. ## Counting the Group The guideline is titled "Unlawful Possession" in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. The Sentencing Commission counted 213 people for whom it was the primary guideline in the fiscal year from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017\. The Commission files these cases under its Drug Possession offense type. Probation only, with no prison or other confinement, went to 132 people (62%). A prison term went to 77 (36%). ## Prison Terms and Supervised Release The median prison term among those sent to prison was 2 months. A quarter received 6 months or more, and a quarter received 0.5 months or less. Supervised release was ordered for 47 people (22%), with a median term of 12 months. A mandatory minimum prison term applied to 11 of the 210 people with that information recorded (5%). ## Plea Types and Trial Convictions Of the 213 people, 209 (98%) pleaded guilty and 4 were convicted after a trial. The median prison term was 2 months after a guilty plea and 10 months after a trial. The trial figure is based on 3 people sent to prison. Among the guilty pleas, 68% had a written plea agreement and 30% were straight pleas with no agreement. ## Where Sentences Fell Against the Range Within the advisory range were 191 people (91%). Below the range at the government's request were 6 (3%), below the range without a government request were 6 (3%), and above the range were 6 (3%). In criminal history category I, the lowest, were 61% of the group. In category VI, the highest, were 7%. Court-martial records have no criminal history field. ## Comparison With Other Years, Other Guidelines, and the Military Pairing Across fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 1,393 people were sentenced under §2D2.1\. Of those, 42% went to prison, the median prison term was 1.6 months, 98% pleaded guilty, and 88% were within the range. The 2017 median is higher than 1.6 months, and the 91% within the range is higher than 88%. In fiscal year 2016, 230 people were sentenced, with a median of 2 months and 95% within the range. In fiscal year 2018, 191 were sentenced, with a median of 1 month and 93% within the range. Across all guidelines in 2017, 66,873 people were sentenced in federal court. Their median prison term was 24 months, 97% pleaded guilty, and 49% were within the range. The approved crosswalk pairs §2D2.1 with Article 112a of the UCMJ, and the comparison posts cover that. | Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty | | ----------- | ---------------- | ------------- | -------------- | | 2016 | 230 | 2 months | 99% | | 2017 | 213 | 2 months | 98% | | 2018 | 191 | 1 months | more than 99% | | 2019 | 173 | 2.3 months | 99% | | 2020 | 140 | 3 months | 97% | | 2021 | 113 | 0.3 months | 96% | | 2022 | 129 | 2.7 months | 98% | | 2023 | 80 | 1.1 months | 96% | | 2024 | 67 | 0.2 months | 97% | | 2025 | 57 | 0 months | 100% | ## Limits Only convicted people who were sentenced appear here. Acquittals and dismissals are not counted. One year of 213 people is not a trend. ### How We Counted Everyone sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2017 whose primary sentencing guideline was §2D2.1 (213), 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. **Mandatory minimum sentences.** Many federal statutes on drugs, images of child exploitation, child sex abuse, and firearms carry mandatory minimum prison terms. The UCMJ has mandatory minimums only for a few offenses (a dishonorable discharge or dismissal for rape and sexual assault, and life for premeditated murder). Federal sentences for these offenses are partly set by Congress, not by the judge. ## Related Analysis - [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/) (the background article) - [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) (all federal posts) - [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/) (sources and method) - [§2D2.1 Unlawful Possession: Federal Sentences, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-guideline-2d2-1-unlawful-possession/) (overview) - [§2D2.1 Unlawful Possession: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2016](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-guideline-2d2-1-unlawful-possession-fy2016/) (previous or next fiscal year) - [§2D2.1 Unlawful Possession: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2018](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-guideline-2d2-1-unlawful-possession-fy2018/) (previous or next fiscal year) - [How Often Federal Judges Sentence Outside the Guideline Range](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-sentences-outside-guideline-range/) - [Mandatory Minimums: How Many Federal Sentences Are Set by Congress](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-mandatory-minimum-sentences/) - [Army Article 112a Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-trend-2021-2025/) (court-martial data) - [What Sentence Follows an Army Drug Conviction?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-sent-2021-2025/) (court-martial data) - [How Often Are Contested Army Article 112a Cases Acquitted?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-acq-2021-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Guilty Pleas in Army Drug Cases: How Often, and What Came Next](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-plea-2021-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Are Air Force Drug Courts-Martial Disappearing? Article 112a, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-trend-2016-2025/) (court-martial data) - [How Much Confinement for an Article 112a Conviction in the Air Force?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-sent-2016-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Pleading Guilty to Article 112a in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-plea-2016-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Is Navy-Marine Corps Drug Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 112a, 2017–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-112a-trend-2017-2025/) (court-martial data) - [How Much Confinement for an Article 112a Conviction in the Navy-Marine Corps?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-112a-sent-2017-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Fighting a Navy-Marine Corps Drug Charge: How Contested Cases Ended](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-112a-acq-2017-2025/) (court-martial data) - [When Navy-Marine Corps Accused Plead Guilty to Drug](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-112a-plea-2017-2025/) (court-martial data) - [Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession of Controlled Substances): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-112a-courts-martial/) (court-martial data) - [Article 112a UCMJ Drug Offenses and Positive Urinalysis](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/ucmj/article-112a-drug-offenses/?ref=bodiesburied.com) (law firm reference page) - [U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles](https://www.ussc.gov/research/datafiles/commission-datafiles?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source) - [Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants)](https://www.fjc.gov/research/idb?ref=bodiesburied.com) (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](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.