§2G3.1 Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2025
In fiscal year 2025, the U.S. Sentencing Commission counted 28 people sentenced under guideline §2G3.1. The median prison term was 27 months, and 24 people (86%) were sentenced to prison. Sentences within the guideline range were 29%, which is lower than the 38% for all fiscal years 2016 to 2025.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › §2G3.1 Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter › §2G3.1: FY2025
In brief: In fiscal year 2025, the U.S. Sentencing Commission counted 28 people sentenced under guideline §2G3.1. The median prison term was 27 months, and 24 people (86%) were sentenced to prison. Sentences within the guideline range were 29%, which is lower than the 38% for all fiscal years 2016 to 2025.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 28 people sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 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.
Fiscal Year 2025 Sentences at a Glance
Fiscal year 2025 ran from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. In that year, 28 people were sentenced in federal court with §2G3.1 as the primary guideline. Of them, 24 people (86%) received a prison term, and 3 (11%) received probation only.
The median prison term was 27 months, or 2.2 years. A quarter of those sent to prison received 55.5 months or more, and a quarter received 18 months or less.
Where Sentences Fell Against the Range
Within the guideline range, there were 8 sentences (29%). Another 8 (29%) were below the range without a government request, and 2 (7%) were below it at the government's request.
Sentences above the range numbered 10 (36%), the largest group.
Within-range sentences were 29% here, compared with 31% in fiscal year 2024 and 51% for everyone sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2025 under every guideline.
All 28 People Pleaded Guilty
All 28 people (100%) pleaded guilty, and none was convicted after a trial. Written plea agreements covered 82% of the guilty pleas. The other 18% were straight pleas with no agreement.
A mandatory minimum prison term applied to 0 of the 28 people (0%).
Supervised Release, Fines, and Criminal History
Supervised release after prison was ordered for 24 people (86%), with a median term of 36 months. A fine was ordered for 3 people (11%), and restitution for 2 (7%).
In criminal history, 89% were in the lowest category, Category I, and 0% were in the highest, Category VI. Court-martial records have no criminal history field.
The Guideline and Its Place in the Federal Data
The Sentencing Guidelines Manual titles §2G3.1 "Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter; Transferring Obscene Matter to a Minor; Misleading Domain Names." The Commission's offense type for these cases is Obscenity/Other Sex Offenses.
Across all fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 284 people were sentenced under this guideline. Of them, 89% went to prison, more than 99% pleaded guilty, and the median prison term was 28.9 months.
Everyone sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2025 totaled 66,662 people. Their median prison term was 24 months, and 98% pleaded guilty. That group includes every guideline, so it is a general reference only.
Changes From the Prior Year
In fiscal year 2024, 26 people were sentenced under §2G3.1, and the median prison term was 46 months. The median prison term of 27 months in fiscal year 2025 is lower than that. The count of people was higher, at 28.
One year of 28 people is a small count, so the change should not be read as a trend. The table lists each fiscal year from 2016 to 2025.
| Fiscal year | People sentenced | Median prison | Pleaded guilty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 25 | 26 months | 96% |
| 2017 | 26 | 25.5 months | 100% |
| 2018 | 22 | 27 months | 100% |
| 2019 | 25 | 25.5 months | 100% |
| 2020 | 21 | 24 months | 100% |
| 2021 | 37 | 33 months | 100% |
| 2022 | 33 | 46 months | 100% |
| 2023 | 41 | 26.5 months | 98% |
| 2024 | 26 | 46 months | 100% |
| 2025 | 28 | 27 months | 100% |
What the Records Cannot Show
The data counts only people who were convicted and sentenced, so it leaves out acquittals and dismissals. It does not show case facts or why a court chose a given sentence.
There is no close court-martial counterpart for this guideline in the approved crosswalk, so this post reports the federal numbers on their own.
How We Counted
Everyone sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2025 whose primary sentencing guideline was §2G3.1 (28), 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)
- §2G3.1 Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter: Federal Sentences, FY2016–2025 (overview)
- §2G3.1 Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter: Federal Sentences, Fiscal Year 2024 (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.