16 U.S.C. 3373, Penalties and sanctions: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025
In fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 71 federal defendants ended their cases with 16 U.S.C. 3373 as the most serious charge, and 48 (68%) of those charges were felonies. 67 (94%) pleaded guilty, and 68 (96%) were convicted. Of the 68 convicted, 12 (18%) received a prison term on that charge, with a median
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › 16 U.S.C. 3373
In brief: In fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 71 federal defendants ended their cases with 16 U.S.C. 3373 as the most serious charge, and 48 (68%) of those charges were felonies. 67 (94%) pleaded guilty, and 68 (96%) were convicted. Of the 68 convicted, 12 (18%) received a prison term on that charge, with a median of 12 months.
This post uses the Federal Judicial Center's records of 71 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. The series also draws on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 659,036 people sentenced 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.
Charge Level Under Section 3373
Title 16, section 3373 of the U.S. Code is headed "Penalties and sanctions". This post identifies the statute by that heading and nothing more.
Felony charges made up most of this group: 48 defendants (68%). The remaining 23 (32%) faced a Class A misdemeanor. The records list no petty offenses.
The prison figures below combine both levels. A felony and a misdemeanor carry different possible sentences, and the data here does not separate them.
Who Received Prison Time?
Most convicted defendants did not receive a prison term on this charge. 12 of the 68 (18%) did.
For those 12, counting terms of 1 month or more, the median prison term was 12 months. Because the median comes from a small group, it is a rough figure, not a typical sentence for everyone convicted under the section.
Pleas Were Nearly Universal
Guilty pleas ended 67 of the 71 cases (94%). Only 2 defendants (3%) had their cases dismissed, and 2 (3%) went to trial.
Both trials were bench trials, which a judge decides without a jury. 1 of the 2 ended in an acquittal. With 2 trials in 10 fiscal years, the records cannot support an acquittal rate for this section.
A dismissal in these records can include a charge the government dropped, for example after the defendant pleaded guilty in another case. The 2 dismissals came in 2016 and 2019.
Counsel Groups
Private (retained) counsel represented 41 defendants (58%), with 95% pleading guilty and 5% dismissed. CJA panel attorneys, private lawyers appointed by the court, had 15 (21%). Of those, 93% pleaded guilty, and their 1 trial ended in an acquittal (1 of 1).
Federal public or community defenders represented 9 defendants (13%), and 9 of 9 pleaded guilty. 6 defendants (8%) represented themselves. In that group, 5 of 6 pleaded guilty and 1 went to trial, which did not end in an acquittal.
Each counsel group is small, and the groups differ in their charges and circumstances. The figures describe groups of cases, not the quality of lawyers.
| Type of counsel at the end of the case | Defendants | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal public or community defender | 9 | 9 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 0 | 0 |
| CJA panel attorney | 15 | 93% | 0% | 1 | 1 (1 of 1) |
| Private (retained) counsel | 41 | 95% | 5% | 0 | 0 |
| Self-represented | 6 | 5 of 6 | 0 of 6 | 1 | 0 (0 of 1) |
The Yearly Counts
The most cases ended in 2017, with 15, followed by 13 in 2016 and 10 in 2018. From 2019 on, no year had more than 8 cases end.
In every year from 2020 through 2025, all cases ended in a guilty plea. The single acquittal came in 2017.
| Fiscal year | Cases ended | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 13 | 85% | 8% | 1 | 0 (0 of 1) |
| 2017 | 15 | 93% | 0% | 1 | 1 (1 of 1) |
| 2018 | 10 | 100% | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 4 | 3 of 4 | 1 of 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 5 | 5 of 5 | 0 of 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 8 | 8 of 8 | 0 of 8 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 6 | 6 of 6 | 0 of 6 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 4 | 4 of 4 | 0 of 4 | 0 | 0 |
Boundaries of the Data
The Federal Judicial Center counts each defendant whose case ended, including dismissals and acquittals, under the most serious remaining charge. The approved crosswalk has no close court-martial counterpart for this statute. The records do not describe the facts behind any charge or explain any outcome.
How We Counted
Every federal defendant whose case ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 and whose most serious charge at the end of the case (TTITLE1) was under 16 U.S.C. 3373, any subsection (71), Federal Judicial Center, counted as in the federal courts' Table D-4. Type of counsel is TCOUNSEL; labels from the FJC criminal codebook. Section heading from the U.S. Code as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (release point 119-136).
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
Who is in each set of numbers. The federal sentencing numbers come from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. They count only people who were convicted and sentenced in federal district court. People whose cases were dismissed or who were acquitted are not in them. The military numbers come from court-martial results, which include acquittals. To compare acquittal or dismissal rates, the federal side uses a different source: the Federal Judicial Center's case data, which counts every defendant whose case ended.
How "plea" and "trial" are counted. In the federal sentencing numbers, "trial" means the person was convicted after a trial, including people who pleaded guilty to some counts and went to trial on others. People acquitted at trial are not in these numbers at all (see "Who is in each set of numbers"). In the federal case data, the trial rate counts both convictions and acquittals at trial among all defendants whose cases ended, including dismissed cases. Military numbers count contested cases that reached a verdict. These denominators are not the same, and each post states the one it uses.
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.
Type of counsel describes groups of cases, not lawyers. The Federal Judicial Center records the type of counsel at the end of the case. Defendants who hire a lawyer differ from defendants who receive an appointed lawyer in their charges, criminal history, and circumstances, and some defendants change lawyers during a case. Differences in outcomes by type of counsel therefore cannot be credited to the type of lawyer.
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)
- 16 U.S.C. 1538, Prohibited acts: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025 (same title of the U.S. Code)
- 16 U.S.C. 3372, Prohibited acts: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025 (same title of the U.S. Code)
- Appointed vs. Retained Lawyers in Federal Criminal Cases: How Cases Ended, 2016–2025
- Are Courts-Martial More Likely to End in Acquittal Than Federal Trials?
- 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.