U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2003 October 2005, NCJ 210299 -------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) an the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf for mat are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cfjs03.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cfjs --------------------------------------------------------------- 810 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531 Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General World Wide Web site: http//www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director World Wide Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs For information contact National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1-800-851-3420 Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics Report was prepared by the Urban Institute under the supervision of Steven K. Smith and Mark Motivans of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This report was prepared under BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K015. Principal staff at the Urban Institute were Laura Winterfield, William Adams, Avi Bhati, Kamala Mallik Kane, Barbara Parthasarathy, Christine Arriola, and Yan Yuan. Layout and design were by David Williams. Tom Hester of BJS provided editorial review. This report is made possible through the cooperation of the following Federal agencies and their staffs: The United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The staff who provided expert advice about the source records include: Joe Briggs (USMS); Steven Schlesinger and Catherine Whitaker (AOUSC); Barbara Tone, Siobhan Sperin, and Laurie Hamilton (EOUSA); Sue Allison (BOP); and Lou Reedt and Christine Kitchens (U.S. Sentencing Commission). BJS authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use all or any part of the materialin this publication; citation to source, however, is appreciated. An electronic version of this report and the data underlying graphics may be found on the BJS Internet Home Page (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/). The BJS- sponsored Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC)Internet Home Page (http://fjsrc.urban.org) provides online access to the Federal Justice database. Users may download data from the Federal Justice database for independent analysis or use the online query system to quickly obtain customized statistics. Tables Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 1.1. Suspects arrested for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by offense 1.2. Suspects arrested for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by Federal law enforcement agency 1.3. Characteristics of Federal arrestees booked by USMS 1.4. Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by type of drug 1.5. Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by weapons involved at time of arrest 1.6. Warrants initiated, by warrant type 1.7. Warrants cleared, by warrant type 1.8. Time from warrant inititation to clearance, by warrant characteristics 1.9. Time from warrant initiation to clearance, by warrant type Chapter 2. Prosecution, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 2.1. Suspects in matters received by U.S. attorneys, by offense 2.2. Disposition of suspects in matters concluded, by offense 2.3. Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency 2.4. Basis for declination of prosecution by U.S. attorneys 2.5. Disposition of matters declined for prosecution by U.S. Attorneys, by offense 2.6. Mean and median processing times from receipt to filing or declination, by offense Chapter 3. Pretrial release, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 3.1. Outcomes of initial hearing and detention hearing for cases commenced, by offense 3.2. Type of pretrial release for cases terminated, by offense 3.3. Type of pretrial release for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.4. Form of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by offense 3.5. Form of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.6. Pretrial detention hearing outcomes for cases terminated, by offense 3.7. Pretrial detention hearing outcomes for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.8. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by offense 3.9. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by type of release 3.10. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.11. Length of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by form of release or detention, and most serious offense charged Chapter 4. Adjudication, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 4.1. Defendants in criminal cases commenced, by offense 4.2. Disposition of criminal cases terminated, by offense 4.3. Time from filing to disposition of criminal cases terminated 4.4. Dispositions by U.S. magistrates 4.5. Characteristics of convicted offenders Chapter 5. Sentencing, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 5.1. Sentence types for offenders sentenced in criminal cases terminated, by offense 5.2. Type and length of sentences imposed for sentenced offenders, by offense 5.3. Sentences imposed on convicted offenders, by offense of conviction and method of disposition 5.4. Convicted offenders sentenced to incarceration, by offense and offender characteristics 5.5. Average incarceration sentence lengths imposed, for sentenced offenders, by offense and offender characteristics 5.6. Median incarceration sentence lengths imposed, for sentenced offenders, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter 6. Appeals, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 6.1. Criminal appeals filed, by type of criminal case and offense 6.2. Criminal appeals filed and criminal appeals terminated, by offense 6.3. Criminal appeals terminated, by type of criminal case and offense 6.4. Disposition of criminal appeals terminated, by offense 6.5. Criminal appeals cases terminated on the merits, by offense Chapter 7. Corrections, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 7.1. Federal offenders under supervision, by offense 7.2. Characteristics of Federal offenders under supervision, by offense 7.3. Outcomes of probation supervision, by offense 7.4. Characteristics of offenders terminating probation supervision 7.5. Outcomes of supervised release, by offense 7.6. Characteristics of offenders terminating supervised release 7.7. Outcomes of parole, by offense 7.8. Characteristics of offenders terminating parole 7.9. Admissions and releases of Federal prisoners, by offense 7.10. Characteristics of Federal prison population, by major offense category 7.11. Number of first releases from Federal prison, by release method and sentence length 7.12. Average time to first release and percent of sentence served, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.13. Mean time served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.14. Percent of sentence served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.15. Characteristics of first releases from prison, by offense, all releases 7.16. Mean time served to first release from Federal prison for prisoners released by standard methods, by offense and offender characteristics Figures Highlights, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure H.1. Average length of sentences imposed, by offense Figure H.2. Admissions to Federal Bureau of Prisons, releases, and prisoners at yearend, by offense Figure H.3. Average time to first release, standard releases, by offense System overview, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure S.1. System overview, Federal criminal case processing Figure S.2. Federal criminal case processing outcomes Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 1.1. Type of drug involved in drug arrests, by race of arrestee Figure 1.2. Type of immigration arrests Figure 1.3. Type of drug violation Figure 1.4. Suspects arrested by the DEA, by State where arrested Figure 1.5. Time from warrant initiation to closing, by warrant type Chapter 2. Prosecution, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 2.1. Suspects in matters concluded: Percentage of suspects that were prosecuted in U.S. district court, by most serious offense investigated Figure 2.2. Suspects in matters referred by Federal judicial district Chapter 3. Pretrial release, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 3.1. Percent of defendants released prior to case disposition, by offense category Figure 3.2. Detention hearings held, by offense category Figure 3.3. Pretrial release rates, by defendant characteristics Figure 3.4. Pretrial release violation and revocation rates, for cases terminated Chapter 4. Adjudication, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 4.1. Disposition of cases terminated Figure 4.2. Average time from filing to disposition of cases terminated, by offense Figure 4.3. Percent of cases concluded in 2003 that went to trial, by Federal judicial district Chapter 5. Sentencing, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 5.1. Rates of incarceration and probation for offenders convicted and sentenced in cases that terminated Figure 5.2. Incarceration and probation sentence lengths (in months) of offenders convicted and sentenced in cases that terminated Figure 5.3. Average prison sentences imposed on defendants convicted at trial or by guilty plea Chapter 6. Appeals, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 6.1. Types of criminal appeal cases filed Figure 6.2. Appeals cases filed, by type of offense Figure 6.3. Disposition of criminal appeals terminated Chapter 7. Corrections, October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Figure 7.1. Violation rates of offenders terminating probation, supervised release, or parole, by type of violation Figure 7.2. Violation rates of offenders completing probation, supervised release, or parole, by category of offense Figure 7.3. Rates of violation of conditions of supervision, by level of education Figure 7.4. Mean lengths of sentence imposed and time served(in months), for offenders released from prison for the first time, by offense Figure 7.5. Characteristics of first releasees Highlights During 2003 the Homeland Security Act took effect, reorganizing several Federal law enforcement agencies into the Department of Homeland Security. The agencies that comprised the new department were responsible for roughly one-third of all Federal arrests and bookings in 2003. The number of suspects investigated by U.S. attorneys increased between 2002 and 2003, from 124,335 to 130,078. About three-quarters of those for which the investigation was concluded were prosecuted – either before a U.S. district court judge (62%) or before a U.S. magistrate (12%) -- and 26% of those investigated were not prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys. The number of defendants prosecuted in Federal courts increased slightly between 2002 and 2003, from 90,407 to 94,916. The number of offenders under Federal correctional supervision increased 84% between 1990 and 2003. At the end of fiscal year 2003, the number of offenders in Federal prison or on community supervision was 261,435 compared to 141,790 during 1990. At the end of fiscal year 2003, the number of Federal inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment was 152,459. The number under community supervision was 108,976. Over 72% of those under community supervision were on post-incarceration supervised release (75,766) or parole (3,239). Arrest During 2003, 126,878 suspects were arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies for violations of Federal law. Twenty-six percent of those arrested and booked by the U.S. Marshals Service were for drug offenses, 22% for immigration offenses, 18% for supervision violations, 13% for property offenses, 7% each for public-order and weapon offenses, and 4% each for violent offenses and to secure and safeguard a material witness. Several Federal agencies were moved to the new Department of Homeland Security in 2003, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Secret Service. During 2003 the agencies that would comprise Homeland Security were responsible for about one-third of arrests and bookings. Within the Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshals Service made 28% of the arrests; the Drug Enforcement Administration 10%, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 8%. Prosecution During 2003 U.S. attorneys initiated criminal investigations involving 130,078 suspects, and they concluded their investigations of 128,518 suspects. Twenty-nine percent of the suspects were investigated for drug, 21% for property, 18% for public order, 16% for immigration, 11% for weapon, and 4% for violent offenses. Of the suspects in criminal matters concluded, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 80,106 in U.S. district courts and 14,810 were disposed of before U.S. magistrates. During 2003, U.S. attorneys declined 26% of matters concluded. Suspects in criminal matters involving immigration or drug offenses were more likely to be prosecuted in a U.S. district court(81% and 76%, respectively) than were suspects involved in weapon (71%), violent (56%), property (53%), or public-order offenses (30%). Suspects involved in property offenses (such as fraud) or violent offenses were more likely to be declined for prosecution (about 40%) than were suspects investigated for public- order offenses (38%), weapon (27%), drug (18%), or immigration (6%) offenses. Pretrial release Of 83,419 pretrial cases commenced in 2003, 35% of defendants were released after either an initial or detention hearing, while 64% were detained, and less than 1 % were dismissed. During 2003, 41% of the 76,305 defendants who terminated pretrial services were released at some time prior to their criminal trial. Defendants charged with property offenses or public-order offenses were more likely to be released prior to trial (76% and 67%, respectively) than were defendants charged with weapon (42%), drug (39%), violent (36%), or immigration (8%) offenses. The proportion of defendants released prior to trial decreased from 62% during 1990 to 41% during 2003. Defendants having a prior criminal history of serious or violent crimes were less likely to be released than those without a prior criminal history; defendants with a greater number of prior convictions were less likely to be released than those with fewer prior convictions. About 21% of the defendants with a prior violent felony conviction were released before trial, while 60% of defendants with no prior convictions were released. Forty-two percent of defendants with one prior conviction were released, as compared to 33% of defendants having two to four prior convictions and about 25% of defendants having five or more prior convictions. Eighty percent of defendants released prior to trial completed their periods of release without violating the conditions of their release. Twenty percent of defendants released violated the conditions of their release, and 8% of defendants had their release revoked. Defendants charged with weapon or drug offenses were more likely to commit at least one violation of their conditions of release (32% and 30%, respectively), while defendants charged with weapon, violent, or drug offenses were more likely to have their release revoked (14% for weapon offenses and 11% each for violent or drug offenses) than were other defendants. Defendants released during 2003 were more likely to violate the conditions of their pretrial release than those released during 1990 (20% compared to 12%). Adjudication During 2003, 92,085 defendants were charged in Federal courts with a criminal offense, 87% of whom were charged with felonies. Of the defendants charged with felonies, 38% were prosecuted for drug, 20% each for property, and immigration, 12% for weapon, 6% for public-order, and 4% for violent offenses. The number of defendants charged with a felony immigration offense increased by 22% between 2002 and 2003, from 13,101 to 15,997. The number charged with a felony weapon offense increased by 23%, from 8,104 to 9,961. Criminal cases were concluded against 85,106 defendants during 2003, 87% of whom had been charged with felonies. The proportion of defendants convicted in the Federal courts increased from 81% during 1990 to 89% during 2003. The proportion of convicted defendants who pleaded guilty increased from 87% during 1990 to 96% during 2003. About 92% of defendants charged with felonies were convicted. The conviction rate was similar for the major offense categories: 97% of defendants charged with immigration offenses, 92% of drug defendants, 91% of property and violent defendants, 90% of weapon defendants, and 86% of public-order defendants. Sentencing Defendants convicted during 2003 were more likely to be sentenced to prison than those convicted during 1990. During 2003 about 76% of defendants were sentenced to prison compared to 60% of those sentenced during 1990. Ninety-three percent of felony violent offenders received prison terms, as did 92% of felony weapon and drug offenders, 87% of felony immigration offenders, 70% of felony public-order offenders, and 60% of felony property offenders. The 57,629 offenders sentenced to prison received, on average, 58.7 months of imprisonment. Offenders sentenced for felony violent offenses, felony weapon offenses, and felony drug offenses received longer average prison terms (97.2, 83.7, and 81.4 months, respectively) than those convicted of felony property, immigration, public-order offenses (27.3, 26.7, and 42.9 months, respectively). While the proportion of defendants sentenced to prison is at an all-time high, average prison sentences have declined from the peak attained during 1992. During 1992 the average prison term imposed was 62.6 months; for drug felony offenders, the average term was 84.1 months. Violent felony offenders, however, received a longer sentence in 2003 (97.2 months compared to 94.8 months in 1992). Appeals Between 1994 and 2003, the number of appeals received by the U.S. Courts of Appeals remained relatively stable -- between about 9,000 and 12,000 annually. However, the proportion of criminal defendants appealing some aspect of their conviction decreased from 21% during 1994 to 16% during 2003. During 2003, 11,968 criminal appeals were filed, a 6% increase from FY2001 (11,281). Eighty-five percent of all appeals filed were appeals of convictions for offenses sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. Sixty-one percent of the guideline-based appeals filed challenged both the conviction and sentence imposed. Of the 11,678 appeals terminated during 2003, 75% (or 8,728) were terminated on the merits. In 84% of the appeals terminated on the merits, the district court ruling was affirmed, at least in part. Corrections Community supervision Between 1990 and 2003, the number of offenders on community supervision increased by 29%, from 84,801 during 1990 to 108,976 during 2003. While nearly equal proportions of offenders were serving terms of probation and post-incarceration supervision (parole or supervised release) during 1990, during 2003, over 72% were serving a term of post-incarceration supervision (70% supervised release and 3% parole) while 28% were on probation. Drug offenders comprised 18% of offenders on probation, 54% of offenders serving terms of supervised release, and 41% of offenders on parole. Property offenders comprised 45% of offenders on probation, 23% of offenders serving terms of supervised release, and 8% of offenders on parole. A total of 15,294 offenders terminated probation during 2003. Most of these offenders (80%) completed their terms of probation successfully. Twelve percent of probationers terminating supervision during 2003 committed technical violations; 6% committed new crimes. A total of 30,585 offenders completed terms of supervised release during 2003. Of these offenders, 62% successfully completed their terms without violating conditions of release; 23% committed technical violations; and 13% committed new crimes. A total of 1,504 offenders completed terms of parole during 2003. Of these offenders, 52% successfully completed their terms without violating conditions of release; 28% committed technical violations; and 15% committed new crimes. Prison Between 1990 and 2003, the number of inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment increased by 168%, from 56,989 during 1990 to 152,459 during 2003. During 2003, 53,562 prisoners were received by the Bureau of Prisons from U.S. district court commitments. An additional 19,113 prisoners were returned to Federal prison for violating conditions of probation, parole, or supervised release, or were admitted to Federal prison from elsewhere than a U.S. district court. Drug offenders -- who comprised 41% of persons admitted into Federal prison -- comprised the largest percentage of persons in prison (56%) at the end of 2003. During 2003, 45,820 prisoners were released for the first time from Federal prison after commitment by a U.S. district court. Of these, 40,780 were released by standard methods and 5,040 were released by extraordinary means (death, treaty transfer, sentence commutation, or drug treatment). An additional 17,912 prisoners were released from subsequent commitments to Federal prison. Average time served by Federal offenders increased from 24 months during 1994 to 33 months during 2003. The proportion of the sentence served increased from 65% during 1990 to 91% during 2003. Violent, weapon, and drug offenders were among those offenders who served the longest prison terms (64 months for violent offenders and 44 months for weapon offenders and 44 for drug offenders). Introduction This Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report presents an overview of case processing in the Federal criminal justice system. The data presented are compiled from the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) database. The FJSP database includes data provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in addition to providing data describing defendants in criminal cases processed by the Federal judiciary, provides data describing defendants processed by the Federal pretrial services agencies and the Federal probation and supervision service. The data can be downloaded from the Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center at . Each agency reports on cases processed during a given year in an annual statistical report. These reports are often incomparable across agencies due to the varying methods the agencies use to report case processing activities. As reported by an interagency working group, headed by BJS, the differences in the case processing statistics are attributable, in part, to the differing needs and missions of the agencies. The working group found the following differences in reported statistics: * the universe of cases reported during a given period -- some agencies report on those case processing events that occurred during a particular period, whereas others report on those events recorded during a particular period; and * many of the commonly used case processing statistics -- suspect/defendant processed, offense committed, disposition, and sentence imposed –-are defined differently across agencies. BJS, through its FJSP, has recognized the incomparability of these annual statistical reports and has attempted to reconcile many of the differences identified by the working group. For instance, by combining databases from several years, BJS is able to report on those cases that actually occurred during the reporting period. Commonly used case processing statistics are made comparable across stages by applying uniform definitions to data obtained from each agency. Because definitions in the FJSP are consistent with those categories in BJS programs describing State defendants convicted, sentenced, or imprisoned, the comparison of Federal and State case processing statistics is facilitated. The 2003 Compendium, 18th in a series which includes 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, describes defendants processed at each stage of the Federal justice system -- arrest by Federal law enforcement agencies (chapter 1), investigation and prosecution by the U.S. attorneys (chapter 2), pretrial release or detention (chapter 3), adjudication in the U.S. district courts (chapter 4), sentencing (chapter 5), appeal of the conviction and/or sentence imposed (chapter 6), and corrections (chapter 7) -- for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2003 (the Federal fiscal year). Prior to 1994, the Compendium was reported on a calendar-year basis. The tables presented report events that occurred during the Federal fiscal year -- October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003. Generally, the tables include both individual and organizational defendants. Organizational defendants are not included in tables showing defendants sentenced to incarceration, or tables describing offenders under post-conviction community supervision. Juvenile offenders charged as adults are included in the reported statistics. Felony and misdemeanor distinctions are provided where possible (see "Offense classifications" in Methodology). Organization of the Compendium Each chapter of the Compendium describes a major stage in the processing of criminal suspects and defendants. Each chapter contains Chapter notes that describe the universes of data used in the tables and information relevant to the interpretation of individual tables. The Compendium contains the following: Chapter 1 describes arrests made by Federal law enforcement agencies for violations of Federal law, including the characteristics of arrestees; warrants initiated and cleared by the U.S. Marshals Service are also reported. Chapter 2 describes decisions made by Federal prosecutors in screening criminal matters and the characteristics of defendants in cases prosecuted or declined for prosecution. Chapter 3 describes the pretrial release and detention practices of the Federal judiciary, including the characteristics of defendants detained or released pending trial. Chapter 4 describes actions by the Federal judiciary in adjudicating defendants in cases filed by the U.S. attorneys, including the offense charged and characteristics of defendants convicted. Chapter 5 describes the sentences imposed by the Federal judiciary on convicted defendants, including the characteristics of defendants sentenced. Chapter 6 describes appeals of criminal convictions and sentences imposed in the Federal courts, including the original offense charged. Chapter 7 describes defendants under Federal correctional supervision -- probation, parole, and supervised release -- including the outcome of the supervision (successful completion or violations), admissions to and releases from Federal prison, and time served by Federal inmates. The Methodology section describes the procedures followed in analyzing data and developing tables. The Glossary contains definitions for terms used in the Compendium. Since many terms used in the text and tables have specialized meanings (either because they refer to Federal law or because of reporting procedures by the Federal agencies supplying the data), readers are encouraged to check the glossary for exact definitions of tabulated data. Modifications in the 2003 Compendium Several Federal agencies that had been part of the Justice, Transportation, and Treasury departments were moved to the new Department of Homeland Security in 2003, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Secret Service. This reorganization affects the distribution of arrests across agencies in table 1.2 and does not permit direct comparisons with prior years' Compendia. The FY2003 Compendium introduces data about fugitive investigations obtained from the U.S. Marshals Service's Warrant Information Network. Chapter 1 contains 4 new tables (1.6 --1.9) with data about warrants initiated and cleared, including time from warrant initiation to clearance. Notes to reader The tables in the Compendium were constructed to permit valid comparisons within each table and to allow the reader to compare percentages (but not raw totals) across tables. It should be understood, however, that the total number of subjects/defendants shown in a particular table may not equal the number of subjects/ defendants involved in a particular stage of processing, since some records could not be linked and some data sources did not include information on particular data elements classified in a particular table. Data notes indicate the exact universe for individual tables. The Compendium is a statistical presentation of Federal criminal justice information with limited analyses of trends or explanatory factors underlying the statistics. Analyses of Federal justice statistics may be found in special reports and other publications, some of which are cited in the Compendium. Assessment of changing patterns in the Compendium tabulations may depend on detailed examination of sub-categories not shown in the tabulations or may require other sources of information, such as knowledge of legislation or Federal agency procedures. Chapter 1 Arrests for Federal offenses Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 1.1. Suspects arrested for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by offense 1.2. Suspects arrested for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by Federal law enforcement agency 1.3. Characteristics of Federal arrestees booked by USMS 1.4. Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by type of drug 1.5. Characteristics of suspects arrested byDrug Enforcement Administration agents, by weapons involved at time of arrest 1.6. Warrants initiated, by warrant type 1.7. Warrants cleared, by warrant type 1.8. Time from warrant inititation to clearance, by warrant characteristics 1.9. Time from warrant initiation to clearance, by warrant type Chapter notes Chapter 1 Arrests for Federal Offenses Persons suspected of violating Federal law may be arrested by any one of the many Federal agencies empowered to make arrests, or by State or local authorities. A recent survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 67 Federal agencies employed over 93,000 full-time officers with the authority to carry firearms and make arrests. ***Footnote 1: Brian A. Reeves and Lynn M. Bauer, Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC (NCJ-199995).*** Three-fifths of these officers were employed by four agencies: the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Customs Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Regardless of which agency makes the arrest, Federal suspects are typically transferred to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for booking, processing and detention.***Footnote 2,3: The Federal agency making the arrest may be different from the Federal agency initiating the investigation involving the arrestee. Statistics describing agencies initiating investigations are shown in table 2.3 of chapter 2, "Prosecution." A portion of immigration arrests result in administrative deportation and are not booked by USMS.*** During 2003, USMS received 126,878 suspects for processing from Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, including approximately 36,000 suspects arrested by USMS, 32,000 by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 12,000 by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and 9,500 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Number arrested and booked by offense categories (table 1.1) During 2003, 126,878 suspects were arrested for violations of Federal law and subsequently booked by USMS. Of those suspects arrested and booked, 26% were arrested for drug offenses, 22% for immigration offenses, 18% for supervision violations, 13% for property offenses, 7% each for weapon and public-order offenses, and 4% each for violent offenses and to secure and safeguard a material witness. Examining drug arrests further, the greatest portion of drug arrests (36%) involved cocaine (crack or powder); 25% involved marijuana; 14% involved amphetamine or methamphetamine; 6% involved heroin; and the remainder involved other drugs or illegal drug equipment. Most arrests and bookings for immigration offenses (82%) were for illegal entry into the United States; 12% involved alien smuggling; and 3% each involved false claims of citizenship by entrants to the United States and other immigration violations. Number arrested and booked by law enforcement agencies(table 1.2) Several Federal law enforcement agencies were reorganized in 2003 with the implementation of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). This Act, which took effect on March 1, 2003, created the Department of Homeland Security and ushered in a significant reorganization of Federal agencies. Several agencies that had been part of the Justice, Transportation, and Treasury departments were moved to Homeland Security during 2003. Among the many reorganizations, the Immigration and Naturalization Service moved from the Department of Justice to Homeland Security and was reorganized into three bureaus with different functional responsibilities: the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services provides citizenship, asylum and refugee services; the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is responsible for illegal alien detention and removal, as well as immigration intelligence and investigation programs; and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which includes the U.S. Border Patrol, is responsible for border inspection and enforcement. Furthermore, the Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration moved from the Department of Transportation to Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security also incorporated the U.S. Customs Service and the Secret Service, both formerly part of the Treasury Department. In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms moved from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department. More information about agency reorganizations, including reorganizations of agencies without arrest or investigatory powers, is available on the Department of Homeland Security Web site.***Footnote 4: http://www.dhs.gov*** The agencies that would ultimately comprise Homeland Security represented roughly one-third of all Federal arrests and bookings in 2003. Twenty-five percent of arrests and bookings were made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 6% were by the Customs Service, and an additional 2% were by the Secret Service. The largest share of Federal arrests and bookings was from the U.S. Marshals Service (28%), followed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (25%). Arrests by the Drug Enforcement Administration comprised 10%; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 8%; the U.S. Customs Service, 6%; and State and local law enforcement, 5%. An additional 7% of arrests and bookings were self-surrenders by suspects following the receipt of a summons. Suspects arrested and booked across demographic groups(table 1.3) Suspects arrested and booked for Federal offenses in 2003 were predominantly male (86%), white (71%), and between the ages of 21 and 40 years (70%). The majority (62%) were U.S. citizens. Of the approximately one-third (38%) who were identified as noncitizens, the most common reasons for arrest were immigration and drug offenses. (54% and 20% of noncitizens, respectively; data not shown). Examining the demographics of drug offense arrestees further, about two-thirds (68%) were white, and most of the remaining third (29%) were black. The racial distribution of suspects differed by the type of drug involved. Whites made up the majority of suspects arrested for most drug types, including amphetamines (92%), marijuana (89%), heroin (64%), and other drugs (71%). The exception was cocaine-related drug arrests, for which blacks comprised 57% of suspects and whites, 42%. Arrests reported by DEA agents (tables 1.4-1.5) Created in 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws. The DEA investigates major drug offenders at the national and international levels with a focus on organized gangs involved in drug trafficking, violent offending, and money laundering. The DEA coordinates and works with Federal, State, and local agencies to investigate and assist in the prosecution of drug offenses spanning interstate and/or Federal jurisdictions. The DEA State and Local Task Force Program consists of approximately 200 state and local Task Forces. ***Footnote 5: DEA web site, http://www.dea.gov/programs/ taskforces.htm (Accessed May 12, 2005).*** Altogether, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration arrested 26,850 suspects in 2003. Not all were booked for violations of Federal law however; some were referred to U.S. attorneys for a prosecutorial decision while others were referred to a State prosecutor (see Chapter notes). Suspects arrested by DEA agents were predominantly white (70%), non-Hispanic (57%), male (84%), and U.S. citizens (77%). The greatest proportion of arrestees was between 21 and 30 years old (44%). Cocaine was the predominant drug involved in arrests made by DEA agents, with cocaine powder comprising 24% of all arrests and crack cocaine, 14%. Twenty-one percent of DEA arrests involved methamphetamines; 21% involved marijuana; 8% involved opiates; and 10% involved other drugs or non-drug offenses. The majority of suspects arrested for each type of drug was white, with the exception of crack cocaine, for which the majority of suspects was black. The types of violations that suspects were arrested for were distribution or possession with intent to deliver, 36%; conspiracy, 34%; simple possession, 16%; and manufacturing or other offenses, 14%. Arrests by DEA agents were geographically concentrated. For example, the DEA-coordinated Southwest Border Initiative brings together multiple agencies (U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Customs, FBI) to target Mexico-based traffickers operating along the Southwest border. In 2003, one in ten DEA arrests occurred in a county directly adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border (data not shown). Overall, four in ten DEA arrests in 2003 were made in four states: 12% in Texas, 11% in California, 11% in Florida, and 7% in New York. Chapter notes Tables 1.1-1.3 were derived from the U.S. Marshals Service Prisoner Tracking System. Only records of arrests made during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. Information on individual cases, offenses, and detainees were used to construct the tables. The data in tables 1.1-1.3 are not directly comparable to tables 1.1-1.3 in prior Compendia because of changes in the data processing methodology. Prior Compendia (1998-2002) overstated the number of Federal arrests by about 4,000 or 3% because some suspects were booked in more than one Federal district following their arrests. For example, a suspect who is arrested and booked in district A may be transferred to district B because of an outstanding warrant in district B. Upon arrival in district B, the suspect is booked a second time. The data presented in this Compendium reflect only the first booking associated with a given person-arrest. Tables 1.4-1.5 were derived from the DEA Defendant Statistical System. Only records of arrests made during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. Counts of DEA arrests from tables 1.4-1.5 will be higher than those reported as DEA arrests by the U.S. Marshals (in table 1.2) because some suspects arrested by DEA agents are transferred to State or local jurisdiction and are, therefore, never booked by the U.S. Marshals Service. Tables 1.6-1.9 were derived from the U.S. Marshals Service Warrant Information Network. Only records of warrants initiated or warrants cleared during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003 were selected. Information on warrant type, warrant execution, and warrant offense were used to construct the tables. The offense classification codes used by the U.S. Marshals Service were aggregated into the categories shown in tables 1.1-1.3 and table 1.8. These categories are similar, but may not be directly comparable, to categories used in other tables of this Compendium. Chapter 2 Prosecution Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 September 30, 2003 2.1. Suspects in matters received by U.S. attorneys, by offense 2.2. Disposition of suspects in matters concluded, by offense 2.3. Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency 2.4. Basis for declination of prosecution by U.S. attorneys 2.5. Disposition of matters declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by offense 2.6. Mean and median processing times from receipt to filing or declination, by offense Chapter notes Chapter 2 Prosecution Federal criminal cases may be brought by the U. S. Attorney's Office, by the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, or by other authorized law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service. The 93 U.S. attorneys serve as the chief Federal law enforcement officers within their respective districts. Investigations are most commonly referred to a U.S. attorney by a Federal investigative agency (primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Customs Bureau; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and the Secret Service) or by a State or local investigative agency. Investigations may also be initiated -- and cases brought directly -- by U.S. attorneys or by the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This chapter reports on suspects that were at least partially investigated by U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys' decisions After criminal investigations are initiated and criminal suspects are referred to them, U.S. attorneys may file charges against defendants in a U.S. district court, or they may file cases before U.S. magistrates, who have the authority to adjudicate misdemeanor offenses (18 U.S.C. sec 3401); because of the relatively less serious nature of these cases, and because they are handled by magistrates, the U.S. attorneys count these cases as criminal matters disposed by U.S. magistrates. U.S. attorneys may also decline to file charges for reasons such as weak or insufficient evidence, minimal Federal interest, lack of resources, or lack of criminal intent. Matters that are declined may be referred to another authority for prosecution or be settled through alternative resolution procedures. The decision to prosecute a suspect in a criminal matter depends upon many factors, including the Attorney General's priorities, U.S. attorney priorities and resources, laws governing each type of offense, and the strength of evidence in each case. During 2003, 62% of the suspects investigated by U.S. attorneys were prosecuted in U.S. district court, and U.S. magistrates handled an additional 12%. Suspects were prosecuted at different rates depending on the offense involved. Suspects in immigration matters were the most likely to be prosecuted; 81% had charges filed against them in U.S. district court and an additional 13% had charges filed before a U.S. magistrate. The rate of prosecution was similar for drug offenses, with 76% of suspects having charges filed in district court and 6% having charges filed in magistrate court. About two-thirds of suspects in weapon and violent offense matters were prosecuted, with most (71% and 56%, respectively) being prosecuted in district court. Public-order and property offenses were the least likely to be prosecuted. Thirty percent of public-order suspects were prosecuted in U.S. district court, and 32% were concluded by magistrates. Fifty-three percent of property suspects were prosecuted in district court. Suspects in matters received(table 2.1) During 2003 there were 130,078 suspects in new matters received for investigation by U.S. attorneys. Of these suspects, nearly one-third (29%) were investigated for drug offenses; about one-fifth (21%) for property offenses; 18% for public-order offenses; 16% for immigration offenses; 11% for weapon offenses; and 4% for violent offenses. Investigating and prosecuting terrorism threats and related persons and enterprises was the highest priority for 2003, although violent crimes-particularly those involving firearms-as well as identifying, disrupting, and dismantling drug trafficking organizations continued to be high priorities. Other areas of special emphasis during 2003 included corporate fraud and civil rights prosecution. ***Footnote 1: Statistical Report, United States Attorneys' Offices, Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Washington, DC.*** Disposition of suspects in matters concluded (tables 2.2-2.6) Upon receiving a matter, a U.S. attorney may either decline it for prosecution immediately or investigate further. Upon conclusion of the investigation, U.S. attorneys may file criminal charges in a U.S. district court, refer the matter to a U.S. magistrate, or decline the case for Federal prosecution. Of the 128,518 suspects in criminal matters concluded during 2003, 62% were prosecuted in U.S. district court, 12% were referred to U.S. magistrates, and 26% were declined for Federal prosecution.***Footnote 2: The number of suspects in criminal matters concluded is not comparable to the 1993 and prior compendia. See Chapter notes, item 2, p. 37, for details.*** Suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court (table 2.2) -- U.S. attorneys prosecuted 80,106 suspects in U.S. district courts during 2003. The likelihood of prosecution in U.S. district court varied widely across offense categories. Suspects involved in immigration and drug offenses were more likely to be prosecuted than suspects in other types of offenses. U.S. attorneys filed charges in district court against most (81%) of the suspects involved in immigration offenses and most (76%) of the suspects involved in drug offenses; 71% of those in weapon offenses; 56% of those in violent offenses; 53% of those in property offenses; and 30% of those in public-order offenses. Differences in rates of prosecution within major categories were substantial. For example, among violent offenses, 77% of robbery suspects were prosecuted, while 41% of murder suspects, 45% of assault suspects, 30% of kidnaping suspects, and approximately 38% of sexual abuse suspects were prosecuted in U.S. district courts. Among suspects investigated for property offenses, those in counterfeiting matters had the highest rate of prosecution (65%), while those investigated for arson and explosives had the lowest rate of prosecution (42%). Among suspects investigated for public-order offenses, those in antitrust (77%), tax law (66%), and gambling matters (61%) were much more likely to be prosecuted than suspects in civil rights (8%) and conspiracy (9%) matters. Suspects in matters concluded by U.S. magistrates (table 2.2) -- During 2003, U.S. attorneys referred 12% of all the criminal matters they investigated to U.S. magistrates. Cases concluded by U.S. magistrates are, by statute, misdemeanors.***Footnote 3: At the time that U.S. attorneys receive them, matters may not be classifiable as felonies or misdemeanors. If a U.S. magistrate disposes of a case -- or what the U.S. attorneys call a "matter" -- its offense level has been determined, by statute, to be a misdemeanor.*** Public-order offenses comprised 48% of all matters concluded by U.S. magistrates; most of these were conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and jurisdictional offenses (27%) and escape violations (7%). Immigration (18%), drug (16%) and property offenses (13%) were also common. Violent and weapon offenses comprised the smallest portion of the matters disposed by magistrates (2% each). For most offenses, the likelihood that a U.S. magistrate concluded the matter was relatively low. Offenses having comparably high rates of disposal by magistrates included traffic offenses (97%); conspiracy, aiding and abetting and jurisdictional offenses (86%); other property violations (74%); and wildlife offenses (67%). Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency (table 2.3) -- During 2003, 55% of suspects in matters concluded were investigated by components of the Department of Justice; the Treasury Department investigated 20% of suspects in matters concluded. In addition, independent Federal agencies and State/local agencies investigated 10% of suspects in matters concluded. Among the investigating agencies, the National Park Service (4%), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (6%), and the U.S. Army (8%) had among the lowest declination rates, while the Railroad Retirement Board (75%), the Environmental Protection Agency (65%), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (59%) were among those with the highest declination rates. The declination rate for matters investigated by components of the Department of Justice (26%) was about the same as the overall declination rate. Suspects in matters declined for Federal prosecution (tables 2.2, 2.4-2.5) -- Twenty-six percent of the matters concluded by U.S. attorneys in 2003 were declined for Federal prosecution. Suspects in property (40%) and violent matters were the most likely to have their matters declined (39%). Thirty-eight percent of matters involving public-order offenses were also declined, as were 27% of weapon and 18% of drug matters. Matters involving an immigration offense were the least likely to be declined (6%). The decision to decline Federal prosecution is based on a number of factors, including the lack of a prosecutable offense, an alternative resolution, or case-and suspect-related reasons. Of the 33,602 declinations during 2003, 26% occurred because of case-related reasons, mostly due to weak evidence (22%); 22% occurred because there was no crime or criminal intent was lacking; and 24% occurred for other reasons, such as agency requests (9%) and lack of resources (6%). Not all suspects whose matters were declined by U.S. attorneys avoided prosecution. Twenty-one percent of the suspects in matters declined were referred to another authority for prosecution. An additional 4% were settled through alternative resolution procedures. Suspects involved in weapons related offenses constituted the largest number who were referred by U.S. attorneys to other authorities for prosecution or resolution. Thirty-two percent of the weapons related suspects whose matters were declined prosecution by U.S. attorneys were referred for other prosecution or resolution, as were 30% of the drug, 22% of property offense, 20% of public-order, 16% of violent, and 12% of immigration suspects. Within major offense categories, the likelihood that suspects in matters declined for prosecution were referred to other authorities for prosecution or alternative resolution varied among specific offenses. Within property offenses, referral occurred with 27% of persons involved in counterfeiting, compared to 21% of suspects in fraud cases. Within public-order offenses, 57% of escape suspects were referred to other authorities or had their case settled through alternative procedures, compared to 7% of suspects in civil rights cases. Processing times (table 2.6) -- For matters concluded during 2003, the average number of months from receipt of a matter to its conclusion by a U.S. attorney as a case filing or declination or its disposal by a U.S. magistrate was 8.8 months (a median of 1.7 months). However, the time to process matters varied with the outcome of the matter. U.S. attorneys took an average of 4 months to file charges in U.S. district court, but over one-half of cases were filed within 1 month. Declinations took longer, with an average duration of almost 20 months, though one-half of declinations occurred within 14 months. The processing time for matters disposed by U.S. magistrates also differed by the outcome. Matters resulting in a conviction took an average of 3.3 months to conclude, with one-half of cases concluding within 1.8 months. Matters that did not result in a conviction took longer to conclude- an average of 16 months, with one-half concluding within 2.9 months. Processing times also varied with the type of offense involved. Suspects involved in immigration offenses were processed most quickly, with an average case processing time of 3.5 months and a median time of less than 1 month. Matters involving weapon, drug, and violent offenses took longer to process (ranging from 5.1 to 7.4 months, on average, and median times from 0.9 to 2.1 months), while public-order and property offense matters took the longest to conclude, with average times of 13.1 and 14.5 months, and median times of 4.4 and 7.1 months, respectively. Chapter note Tables 2.1-2.6 were created from the Central System data files of the EOUSA. For table 2.1, only records which showed a matter received during 2003 were selected. For tables 2.2-2.6, only records which show a matter terminated by reason of declination, disposition by a U.S. magistrate, or filed as a case in U.S. district court from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. In all of these tables, matters "declined immediately" -- those cases in which the U.S. attorney spent less than 1 hour investigating -- were excluded. The number of suspects in matters investigated in table 2.1, and the number of suspects in matters concluded in tables 2.2 and 2.6 are not directly comparable to counts in the 1993 and prior compendia. In those years, these statistics included appellants in appeals filed or appeals terminated. In table 2.1 of this Compendium and its corresponding tables in 1994 and subsequent compendia, the number of suspects in matters received is limited to suspects in criminal matters that were filed as cases in U.S. district courts, handled by U.S. magistrates, or declined for prosecution. In the 1993 and prior compendia, the number of suspects in criminal matters received included criminal appeals. To obtain a number of suspects comparable to the statistic reported in the 1993 and prior compendia, add to the data in table 2.1 of this Compendium, the number of appellants in appeals that were handled by U.S. attorneys. In tables 2.2 and 2.6 of this Compendium and their corresponding tables in the 1994 and subsequent compendia, the number of suspects in matters concluded also is limited to those suspects whose matters were concluded by a case filing in a U.S. district court, by declination, or by disposition by a U.S. magistrate. In the 1993 and prior compendia, this number included appellants in criminal appeals terminated. To obtain a number that is comparable to the number reported in the 1993 and prior compendia, the number of appellants in appeals terminated and handled by U.S. attorneys needs to be added to the totals in table 2.2. Offenses in the Central System data files are classified by the title and section of the United States Code for the most serious offense investigated, as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the matter. For tables in this Compendium, these citations were translated into the corresponding four-digit offense codes used by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). These four-digit codes were then aggregated into the categories shown in the tables. U.S. Code citations often do not permit detailed classification of drug offenses by the type of criminal activity involved. A person charged with conspiracy is classified under the substantive offense alleged (for example, conspiracy to defraud is classified as fraud) unless type of conspiracy cannot be determined from the U.S. Code citation. Unclassified conspiracies are included among "conspiracy, aiding and abetting, traffic, and jurisdictional offenses" in tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6. The most serious offense investigated is based on the criminal lead charge as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the criminal matter. In the tables in this chapter, the "all offenses" row or "total declinations" row (in table 2.5) includes records whose offense category (basis for declination) is missing or indeterminable. The percentage distributions in these tables, however, are based on the number of observations with nonmissing offenses (basis for declination) values. The number of missing values are reported either on a separate line or in a footnote. Additional data for "lack of resources" as a reason for declination were discovered in 1999; these cases previously were coded as "unknown or indeterminate" in 1998 and prior years. Therefore, in table 2.4, the apparent increase in "lack of resources" as a declination reason (between 1998 and future years) is due in large part to this additional information and reclassification of declination reasons from "unknown and indeterminate." Chapter 3 Pretrial release Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 3.1. Outcomes of initial hearing and detention hearing for cases commenced, by offense 3.2. Type of pretrial release for cases terminated, by offense 3.3. Type of pretrial release for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.4. Form of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by offense 3.5. Form of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.6. Pretrial detention hearing outcomes for cases terminated, by offense 3.7. Pretrial detention hearing outcomes for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.8. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by offense 3.9. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by type of release 3.10. Behavior of defendants released prior to trial for cases terminated, by defendant characteristics 3.11. Length of pretrial detention for cases terminated, by form of release or detention, and most serious offense charged Chapter notes Chapter 3 Pretrial release The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. sec 3141) sets the terms for release and detention of defendants facing charges in Federal courts. At the time defendants first appear before a judicial officer, they may be (1) released on personal recognizance or unsecured bond; (2) released subject to conditions imposed by the court, possibly including traditional bail; (3) temporarily detained without bail (limited to 10 working days)to permit deportation, exclusion, or the revocation of previously granted conditional release; or(4) detained pending the outcome of a detention hearing. **18U.S.C. sec 3142(e)(1984)** According to the statute, a defendant must be brought before a judicial officer without "unnecessary delay" upon arrest for an "initial appearance". The judicial officer, who may be a judge, but is generally a U.S. magistrate, determines whether the defendant will be released or detained prior to trial. If a hearing is required, the release decision may be delayed no longer than 3 days (or 5 days if requested by the defendant). The recommendation to detain the defendant is made by the U.S. attorney and/or the pretrial services officer. If the court concurs with the recommendation to detain the defendant, a pretrial detention hearing is held to show cause why the defendant should be detained pending adjudication of the charges. According to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, preventive detention is applicable in instances where the defendant was charged with (1) a crime of violence, (2) an offense with a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death, (3) a drug offense with a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years or more imprisonment, or(4) any felony offense if the defendant had been convicted on two or more occasions of an offense described above or a similar State-level offense. A detention recommendation may be made if there is a serious risk that the defendant would flee in an attempt to avoid prosecution or would obstruct justice or intimidate witnesses or jurors. Types of pretrial release Defendants may be released without financial conditions according to the following: Personal recognizance -- defendant is released subject to no financial or other conditions. Unsecured bond -- no money is required to be posted before release, but defendant is liable for full bail amount if he or she fails to appear. Conditional release -- any combination of restrictions that are deemed necessary to guarantee the defendant's appearance at trial or the safety of the community. Non-financial conditions commonly place restrictions on the defendant's movements, associations, and/or actions. They may also involve employment or treatment for medical, psychological, or substance abuse conditions. Defendants may also be released on financial conditions. Financial conditions include: (1) deposit bond (the defendant is required to post a percentage of the total bail amount, usually 10%), (2) surety bond (the defendant is released subject to guarantees by a third person that the full amount will be paid), or (3) collateral bond (collateral equal to the full bail amount required to be posted by the defendant before release). Financial conditions may occur in combination with nonfinancial conditions. Factors relating to release or detention In deciding whether to release a defendant and in setting release conditions, the court is directed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charges, the weight of evidence against the defendant, the defendant's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings. These factors are considered at an initial hearing where the defendant may be released, detained, held for a detention hearing, or the case may be continued or dismissed. At the detention hearing, a defendant may be released, given preventive detention, temporarily detained, detained with no bail set or made, or the case may be continued, dismissed, or transferred. Of the 83,419 defendants whose cases commenced in 2003, 35% (or 29,177) were released after either an initial hearing or a detention hearing, and 64% of defendants were detained. Of the 76,305 defendants who terminated pretrial services during 2003, 41% (31,613) were released for some period of time prior to trial. Of those released defendants, 80% completed pretrial services without violating the conditions of their release. In 2003, 76% (57,856) of defendants terminating pretrial services were detained for some period of time prior to the disposition of their case. This includes those who were detained prior to having a preliminary hearing with the magistrate, at which point they could have been either released or ordered to have a detention hearing. Of the defendants detained, 55% were ordered detained by the court until case disposition. Pretrial detention hearings were held for 42,564 defendants. Of these, 31,766, or 75%, were ordered detained. Of the 31,613 defendants released prior to trial, 20% violated a condition of their release. The majority (92%) of these violations were technical violations of the bail conditions. Defendants released on deposit bond were more likely (26%) than other defendants to incur some violation of the conditions of their release. Conversely, defendants given conditional release violated their release at the lowest rates (1%). Eight percent of all released defendants had their release revoked. Those charged with violent offenses were detained longer on average (115 days) than defendants charged with other offenses (not shown in a table). Defendants who were never released and were detained by the court were detained longer than were defendants detained for financial conditions (110 days) Outcomes for pretrial cases commenced Releases and detentions after the first 2 hearings (table 3.1) -- Of the 83,419 cases commenced in 2003, 35% were released after either an initial hearing or a detention hearing, 64% were detained, and less than 1% were dismissed. Seventy-seven percent of defendants receiving pretrial release were released after an initial hearing; 72% of detained defendants were detained after a detention hearing. After these two hearings, less than 1% of incoming defendants (295) were awaiting a release decision (not shown in a table). Of those charged with property offenses, 70% were released, as were 64% of those charged with public-order offenses, 34% of weapon offense defendants, 30% of drug offense defendants, and 29% of violent offense defendants. Only 6% of those charged with immigration offenses were released after these two hearings. Outcomes for pretrial cases terminated Releases (table 3.2) -- Of cases terminated in 2003, 41% were released. The percent released varied greatly across and within offense categories. Seventy-six percent of property offenders were released, compared with only 8% of immigration offenders. Among violent offenders, 21% of those charged with robbery were released compared to 60% of those charged with sexual abuse and 61% of those charged with assault. Among public-order defendants, 57% of those charged with a racketeering and extortion were released compared to 95% of those charged with tax law violations, and 93% of traffic defendants. Forty-two percent of those charged with weapon offenses were released. Thirty-nine percent of all drug defendants were released. Drug trafficking defendants were less likely to be released than those charged with nontrafficking offenses (37% compared to 56%). How defendants were released prior to trial varied among offense categories. Within each major offense category except for violent offenses, the highest percentage of defendants released was through unsecured bond. Thirty-six percent of violent defendants were released of whom 36% were released on unsecured bond and 48% on personal recognizance -- compared to 76% of all property defendants released, of whom 54% were released on unsecured bond and 32% on personal recognizance. Detentions (tables 3.4 and 3.6) -- Among the major offense categories, defendants charged with immigration, drug, or violent offenses were the most likely (98, 85% and 81% respectively) to be detained for some period of time. However, violent defendants were more likely than immigration or drug defendants to be detained by the court (64% versus 56% and 57%). Of those charged with weapons offenses, 78% were detained, with 60% being detained by the court. Public-order and property defendants were less likely to be detained than were other defendants. During 2003, 47% of public-order defendants were detained, with 48% of these detained by the court. Forty-three percent of defendants charged with property offenses were detained, with 42% of these detained by the court. Fifty-six percent of all defendants had a detention hearing. This rate varied by offense category: 70% of defendants charged with violent offenses, 68% of drug defendants, 60% of immigration defendants, 63% of weapons defendants, 35% of those charged with public-order offenses, and 31% of those charged with property offenses were ordered to have a detention hearing. Once a defendant was ordered to have a detention hearing, the chances of being detained were less variable across offense categories. The highest rate of defendants ordered detained were those charged with immigration offenses (90%). Of the 70% of defendants charged with violent offenses and given a pretrial detention hearing, 75% were ordered detained. In 2003, 74% of those charged with weapon offenses, 71% of drug offenses, 66% of public-order offenses, and 58% of property offenses were ordered detained following a pretrial hearing. Violations (tables 3.8 and 3.9) --Of released defendants terminating pretrial services during 2003, those charged with weapon or drug offenses were more likely than other defendants (32% and 30% compared with 20% overall) to incur at least one violation during the release period. Among other major offense categories, those charged with public-order offenses were the least likely (8%) to violate conditions of their release. Those charged with weapon, violent, or drug offenses were more likely than others to have their release revoked (14% of all released weapon defendants, and 11% of violent or drug defendants compared with 8% overall). Four percent of released property defendants and 9% of released immigration defendants were revoked. Of the 31,613 defendants released, those on deposit bond were more likely (26%) than other defendants (20% overall) to incur a violation of the conditions of their release. Defendants with the lowest rate of release violations were those given conditional release (1%). This group was also the least likely to have a release revocation. Only 0.3% of defendants on conditional release who committed a violation were revoked. Pretrial outcomes across demographic groups Releases (table 3.3) -- Females were more likely (70%) than males (36%) to be released during 2003. Males were more likely to have a financial condition imposed on them than females (21% versus 14%). Sixty percent of all defendants identified as non-Hispanic were released during 2003 compared to 19% of Hispanics. Non-Hispanic releasees were twice as likely as Hispanics to be released on personal recognizance. Sixty-one percent of Native Americans and 55% of Asian defendants were released compared with 48% of black defendants and 38% of white defendants. The higher the education level of the defendant, the greater the probability of release. Thirty- five percent of defendants with less than a high school education were released in 2003, while 77% of those who had completed college were released. Releasees with a college degree, when compared to those with less education, were less likely to receive financial conditions (19% versus 25%). Defendants with a history of drug abuse were released less frequently than those defendants with no known drug history (48% versus 56%). However, among all released defendants, drug abuse history does not appear to have had a major effect on the form of pretrial release. Sixty percent of defendants with no prior convictions were released compared with only 21% of defendants with prior violent felony convictions. Detentions -- Males were more likely (80% versus 53%)than females to be detained. Of all detainees, 77% of the men and 58% of the women were detained following a detention hearing. Hispanics had a substantially higher probability of being detained (94%) compared with non-Hispanics (62%). Almost all of those charged with an immigration offense (98%) -- of which non-citizen Hispanics comprise the majority -- were detained. Younger defendants were more likely than older ones to be detained. Seventy-nine percent of defendants between ages 16 and 18 and 77% of defendants ages 19-20 were detained, compared to 63% of those over 40. However, among all defendants detained, the chances of being detained following a detention hearing were similar across all age groups. Not only were male defendants more likely than female defendants to have a detention hearing (59% versus 38%), they were also more likely (77% versus 58%) to be ordered detained as a result of the hearing. The likelihood of having a detention hearing increased with the number of prior convictions and severity of the defendant's criminal history. Furthermore, 59% of those with a history of drug abuse had detention hearings as compared to 46% of those without such a past. However, those with a history of drug abuse were as likely to be detained after a hearing. Violations (table 3.10) -- Released males were more likely than females to incur a violation during the pretrial release period (21% versus 17%) and more likely to have their release revoked. Native Americans were more likely to incur at least one violation than blacks, whites, or Asians (30% versus 24% for blacks, 18% for whites, and 13% for Asians). Native American defendants also were more likely to have their release revoked (17% versus 8% for blacks, 7% for whites, and 4% for Asians). Defendants without a high school diploma were more likely to have at least one violation than defendants with college degrees (28% versus 8%). Defendants with no prior criminal history were 2 times less likely to have a pretrial release violation than those with a prior conviction. Released defendants with a known drug history were almost 3 times more likely to incur a violation than those with no known drug history and to have their release revoked (15% versus 4%). Length of pretrial detention(table 3.11) Among defendants detained for any time prior to case disposition, those charged with violent offenses were detained the longest (an average of 115 days) compared to drug (88 days), weapon (81 days), immigration (60 days), public-order (55 days), or property (45 days), defendants (not shown in a table). Of defendants released, those released conditionally spent the greatest average number of days detained (81 days) compared to those released on personal recognizance (39 days), unsecured bond (36 days), or financial conditions (26 days). This trend varied only slightly across all major offense categories -- in general, defendants released by conditional means were detained more days than defendants who were released by any other means. Of defendants not released, those detained by the court were detained longer, on average, than those held on financial conditions (110 days compared with 70 days). This pattern was true across all major offense types. Chapter notes All tables in chapter 3 were created from data in the Pretrial Services Information Act System data base, which is maintained by the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) within the AOUSC. The data describe pretrial defendants processed by Federal pretrial service agencies within each district. Defendants who received pretrial services through a local, non-Federal agency, such as the District of Columbia, are not included. The data describe 83,419 defendants whose cases commenced and 76,305 defendants who terminated pretrial services during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, and whose cases were filed by complaint, indictment, or information. In these tables, the totals (e.g., "all offenses") included records whose offense or other attributes were missing or indeterminable. The percentage distributions were based on nonmissing values, and missing values were reported in a separate row or in a footnote. Offenses in the PSA are based on the most serious charged offense, as determined by the probation officer responsible for the interview with the defendant. The probation officer classifies the major offense charged into AOUSC four-digit offense codes. For defendants charged with more than one offense on an indictment, the probation officer chooses as the major charged offense the one carrying the most severe penalty or, in the case of two or more charges carrying the same penalty, the one with the highest offense severity. The offense severity level is determined by the AOUSC, which ranks offenses according to the maximum sentence, type of crime, and maximum fine amount. These four-digit codes are then aggregated into the same offense categories as those used in chapter 4. For drug offenses, the type of drug activity -- trafficking or possession -- is obtained by the probation officers from their reading of the indictment or other charging documents. The AOUSC citation manual provides probation officers with detailed instructions on how to code drug crimes. In tables 3.1-3.5, the percentages showing the methods of release or methods of detention were based on the number of defendants released or the number of defendants detained. In tables 3.6 and 3.7, the percentages were based on the number of defendants who had hearings and were ordered detained. This method departs from the 1993 and prior compendia, in which the percentages were based on the number of defendants terminating pretrial services. Chapter 4 Adjudication Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 4.1. Defendants in criminal cases commenced, by offense 4.2. Disposition of criminal cases terminated, by offense 4.3. Time from filing to disposition of criminal cases terminated 4.4. Dispositions by U.S. Magistrates 4.5. Characteristics of convicted offenders Chapter notes Chapter 4 Adjudication Federal criminal cases may result in conviction of the defendant following plea or trial, acquittal of the defendants after trial, or dismissal of the case.***Footnote 1: Unless otherwise noted, data describe felony and misdemeanor cases in U.S. district courts and include Class A misdemeanors handled by U.S. magistrates. The data also include Class B misdemeanors that are handled by U.S. district court judges, which occur infrequently.*** Defendants in criminal cases commenced (table 4.1) During 2003, 92,085 defendants had criminal cases commenced against them in U.S. district courts, and 80,354 (87%) of those defendants were charged with felonies. The 30,668 drug felony defendants comprised 33% of all criminal defendants in cases commenced and 38% of all felony defendants. Felony property and immigration defendants each comprised 17% of all defendants in cases commenced. The 11,651 misdemeanor defendants constituted 13% of all defendants in cases commenced; 43% of those misdemeanor defendants were charged with traffic violations. Defendants in criminal cases terminated (table 4.2) Cases were terminated against 85,106 defendants during 2003, 74,370 (87%) of whom were felony defendants. During 2003 the 28,597 drug-related felony defendants comprised 34% of all defendants in cases terminated and 38% of all felony defendants. Eighty-nine percent of all defendants, 92% of all felony defendants and 68% of misdemeanor defendants were convicted. Conviction rates for major felony offense categories were in the 86% to 97% range. Within major offense categories, however, the conviction rates varied more widely. For example, within the public-order category, the conviction rate ranged from 62% for civil rights violations to 79% for postal law violations to 100% for antitrust violations. Most defendants who were convicted pleaded guilty. Overall, almost 96% of those convicted pleaded guilty, while only 4% were convicted at trial. For felony offenses, 96% pleaded guilty to their charges. For the major felony offense categories, guilty pleas were registered for 99% of immigration offenders, 96% for each drug and property offenders, 94% for public order, and 93% each for violent and weapon offenders. (Percents were calculated from numbers in table 4.2.) During 2003, only 4% (3,524) of the 85,106 defendants in cases terminated exercised their right to a trial. Eight percent each of weapon and violent offenders went to trial as compared with 7% of public order offenders, 4% each of both property offenders and drug offenders, and 1% of immigration offenders. (Percents were calculated from numbers in table 4.2.) Of defendants who exercised their right to a trial, 2,764 (78%) were convicted either by a jury or a bench trial. The felony trial conviction rate was 82%, while the misdemeanor conviction rate was 52%. Among felony offenses, trial conviction rates ranged from 76% for public-order defendants to 89% for immigration defendants. (Percents were calculated from numbers in table 4.2.) Case processing times (table 4.3) The data in table 4.3 cover the interval from the time a case is filed in U.S. district court through sentencing for those convicted as well as the interval from case filing through disposition for those not convicted, or those whose cases are dismissed. Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended, sets time requirements for processing criminal cases in Federal courts. Except for certain exclusions, indictment must occur within 30 days of arrest; defendants are guaranteed at least 30 days to prepare for trial; and the Government must be ready for trial within 70 days. The Speedy Trial Act does not specify an interval from trial to sentencing, ***Footnote 2: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 specifies minimum intervals for the disclosure and objections to the presentence report. (See rule 31, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.)*** and the time limits set by the act exclude several enumerated periods of pretrial procedure such as time spent awaiting rulings on motions.***Footnote 3: 18 U.S.C. 3161 et. Seq.*** Additionally, defendants may waive their rights within the Speedy Trial Act. As a result, the actual processing time for most defendants can be longer than the statutory limits without violating the provisions of the act. Overall, the average time for processing defendants was 9.8 months. For felony defendants, the overall processing time average was 10.1 months; for those charged with misdemeanor crimes, the average processing time was 7.5 months. Defendants who pleaded guilty were processed, on average, 6.0 months faster than defendants who went to trial. Overall, defendants whose cases were dismissed took the longest to process (18.3 months), on average. Among major felony offense categories, defendants convicted of public-order and drug offenses took a greater amount of time for dismissal (19.6 and 25.1 months, respectively) on average, than for trial (18.7 and 17.5 months, respectively). However, defendants convicted of weapon offenses on average took a greater amount of time for trial(13.3 months) than for dismissal (9.8 months). Convictions by U.S. magistrates (table 4.4) During 2003 U.S. magistrates disposed of 10,803 misdemeanor criminal defendants, 69% of whom were convicted. Public-order offenders comprised nearly 54% of the defendants disposed by U.S. magistrates, with property offenders comprising another 19%. Drug offenses comprised 18% of U.S. magistrates' cases. (Percents were calculated from numbers in table 4.4.) Characteristics of convicted defendants (table 4.5) Among defendants convicted, there were 6.5 times as many men as women (87% versus 13%); and almost three times as many whites as blacks (71% versus 25%). Fifty-seven percent were non-Hispanics. Most were U.S. citizens (64%), had graduated high school or completed some higher education (52%), and had some criminal history (63%). Persons over the age of 30 represented 56% of defendants. Chapter notes Tables 4.1-4.4 were derived from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AOUSC) criminal master data files. Only records with cases filed in U.S. district court or cases that terminated in U.S. district court during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. Offenses were classified according to the most serious offense charged. In the case of multiple offenses, the offense carrying the most severe potential penalty was selected. In this Compendium, carjacking offenses are classified as robberies, based on title and section of the U.S. Code. In compendia prior to the 1997 Compendium, they were classified as motor vehicle thefts, based on the AOUSC offense classifications. Table 4.5 was created by matching the AOUSC master data files with the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) monitoring system files and the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) data files. These latter two data files contain information on the characteristics of defendants. The USSC monitoring system files are limited to records of defendants sentenced under the Federal sentencing guidelines only. These include defendants convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors. Excluded from the USSC data were defendants convicted only of Class B or C misdemeanors or infractions, defendants whose offenses were committed before November 1, 1987, and juvenile offenders. Juveniles charged as adults are included in table 4.5. Some of the defendants excluded from the USSC data files were included in the PSA data. (See Chapter 3 Chapter notes for more information on the PSA data.) Table 4.5 indicates the number of records for which relevant data were available. Percentage distributions were based on records with known values of defendant characteristics. A criminal record, as reported in table 4.5, is limited to prior adult convictions. For some defendants in this table, it is further limited to the portion that is relevant for calculating sentences under the Federal sentencing guidelines. In general, this is limited to sentences imposed within a 15-year period prior to the current offense and offenses committed within the United States. For most defendants, the criminal history used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges includes their entire adult criminal history. Chapter 5 Sentencing Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 September 30, 2003 5.1. Sentence types for offenders sentenced in criminal cases terminated, by offense 5.2. Type and length of sentences imposed for sentenced offenders, by offense 5.3. Sentences imposed on convicted offenders, by offense of conviction and method of disposition 5.4. Convicted offenders sentenced to incarceration, by offense and offender characteristics 5.5. Average incarceration sentence lengths imposed, for sentenced offenders, by offense and offender characteristics 5.6. Median incarceration sentence lengths imposed, for sentenced offenders, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter notes Chapter 5 Sentencing Depending upon the type and severity of the offense, convicted offenders may be sentenced to incarceration, probation, a fine, or a combination of sanctions such as a split or mixed sentence (imprisonment as well as a period of probation supervision). (For a definition of mixed sentences, see Glossary, p. 117.) The Federal sentencing guidelines require a term of supervised release following service of any prison sentence of more than 1 year. In addition, courts have the discretion to impose supervised release in any other case. Except where otherwise indicated, tables in this chapter are based on the most serious offense of conviction. They are not directly comparable with tables in earlier chapters that are based on the most serious offense investigated or most serious offense charged. (See "Offense classifications" in Methodology, p. 113.) Offenders convicted and sentences imposed (tables 5.1 and 5.2) Of the 75,805 offenders sentenced during 2003, 57,629 (76%) were sentenced to prison; 11,804 (16%) were sentenced to probation***Percent 1: Offenders given an intermediate sanction such as intermittent confinement or community confinement that also included probation supervision are counted among offenders given probation.***; and 2,847 (4%) were ordered to pay only a fine. During 2003, 55,811 defendants convicted of felonies were sentenced to prison representing 97% of all prison sentences and 83% of all convicted felons. Felony drug, violent, weapon, and immigration offenders were more likely to receive prison sentences (92%, 93%, 92%, and 87% respectively) than were property (60%) or public-order (70%) offenders. Among public-order offenders, persons convicted of nonviolent sex offenses (92%) and escape (91%) were almost as likely to receive prisons sentences as were violent, drug, weapon, and immigration offenders. Among property offenders, persons convicted of burglary (86%) were the most likely to receive prison sentences. Overall, 16 % of convicted offenders were sentenced to probation. The percentage of misdemeanants sentenced to probation (45%) was nearly 4 times that of convicted felons (12%). Persons convicted of postal law violations were the most likely to receive probation (74%), followed by persons convicted of larceny misdemeanors and environmental offenses (72% and 69% respectively). While 4% of all convicted defendants were ordered to only pay a fine, 29% of the felons convicted of antitrust violations were so ordered. Fines were generally reserved for misdemeanor offenders, 29% of whom received fines. Average prison sentencesimposed (table 5.2) For all offenders sentenced to prison terms, the average term of imprisonment imposed was 58.7 months. Persons convicted of felonies received an average of 60.3 months. The average length of prison sentence length imposed varied among major felony offense categories. Immigration offenders received the shortest sentence, on average, while violent offenders received the longest (26.7 months compared to 97.2 months). Weapon offenders received an average prison term of 83.7 months, and drug offenders received 81.4 months. Lesser terms were administered for public-order offenders receiving 42.9 months, on average, and property offenders receiving an average prison term of 27.3 months. The average sentence length for felony offenses (60.3 months) was over 6 times longer than average sentence length for misdemeanor offenses (9.1 months). Relationship between sentence imposed and mode of conviction (table 5.3) During 2003, offenders convicted by trial were more likely to receive prison sentences than those who pleaded guilty. Seventy-six percent of the offenders convicted by guilty plea received some prison time, while 89% of offenders convicted at trial received prison sentences. For violent offenders, 93% of those convicted by plea received prison sentences, as did 97% of those convicted at trial. For property offenders, 59% of those convicted by plea received prison sentences, compared to 89% of those convicted at trial. For public-order offenders, 69% of those convicted by plea, as contrasted with 91% of those convicted at trial, went to prison. The average prison term imposed on defendants convicted at trial was almost three times longer than the term imposed on defendants convicted by plea. Defendants convicted at trial received 153.7 months, on average (a median of 97 months), while those convicted by plea received an average of 54.7 months (a median of 33 months). Drug offenders convicted at trial received an average of 206.9 months as compared to 76.5 months for drug offenders convicted by a guilty plea. Violent offenders who went to trial received an average sentence of 232.2 months as compared to the 87.4 months for those convicted by guilty plea. Those convicted at trial for weapon offenses received, on average, 174.0 months, compared to the 76.9 months for weapon offenders convicted by guilty plea. Characteristics of offenders sentenced to prison (tables 5.4-5.6 The majority of persons convicted during 2003 were male (87%), white (71%), non-Hispanic (57%), and U.S. citizens (64%). (Percents were calculated from numbers in table 5.4.) The percentage sentenced to prison was not uniform across all categories of age, race, sex, education, and ethnicity. Similarly, the average sentences imposed varied across these categories. However, conclusions about the effect that characteristics may have had on sentencing cannot be drawn from the aggregate patterns in the data. Such an assessment would require detailed information for each category showing the presence or absence of factors that are legally intended to affect sentencing, such as offense severity, weapon use, role in the offense, victim injury, dollar loss, and so forth. One such study of the factors affecting sentencing found that "nearly all of the aggregate differences among sentences for whites, blacks, and Hispanics during 1989-90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses and offenders that current law and sentencing guidelines establish as legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions."***Footnote 2: Douglas C. McDonald and Kenneth E. Carlson, Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1993 (NCJ 145328), p. 1.*** Average sentences imposed were longest for males (60.5 months), blacks (88.3 months), non-Hispanics (71.0 months), and U.S. citizens (70.7 months). These categories of offenders (males, blacks, non- Hispanics, and U.S. citizens)are also more highly concentrated in the offense types associated with longer average sentences. In general, average prison terms were longer for violent, drug and weapon offenses than for property, public-order and immigration offenses. These three offense categories (violent, drug, and weapons) are generally considered to be more serious under the Federal sentencing guidelines than are property and public-order offenses. Chapter notes Tables 5.1-5.3 were generated from the AOUSC criminal master data files. Only records of defendants sentenced between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2003. were selected. Offenses shown in these tables -- offenses of conviction -- are based on the longest actual sentence imposed. Tables 5.4-5.6 were generated from AOUSC criminal master data files supplemented with linked data on offender characteristics from two sources: The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) monitoring system files (which are limited to records of defendants sentenced under the Federal sentencing guidelines); and the Pretrial Services Information Act System database, maintained by the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA). These two supplemental data files contain information on the characteristics of offenders. Table 5.4 indicates the number of records for which relevant data were available. Percent distributions were based on records with known values of defendant characteristics and offenses. Means and medians in tables 5.5 and 5.6 were based on the number of records shown in table 5.4 Criminal record, as reported in tables 5.4-5.6, is limited to prior adult convictions. For some defendants in these tables, it is further limited to the portion of their criminal record that is relevant for calculating sentences under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In general, this is limited to sentences imposed within 15 years of the current offense and sentences for offenses committed within the United States. For most defendants, the criminal history used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges is the same as their adult criminal history. Chapter 6 Appeals Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 September 30, 2003 6.1. Criminal appeals filed, by type of criminal case and offense 6.2. Criminal appeals filed and criminal appeals terminated, by offense 6.3. Criminal appeals terminated, by type of criminal case and offense 6.4. Disposition of criminal appeals terminated, by offense 6.5. Criminal appeals cases terminated on the merits, by offense Chapter notes Chapter 6 Appeals Prior to implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, only criminal convictions could be appealed. However, the Sentencing Reform Act provided for the appellate review of sentences imposed given that the sentence was (1) imposed in violation of the law; (2) imposed as the result of an incorrect sentencing guideline application; (3) outside the recommended guideline sentencing range; or (4) imposed for an offense for which no sentencing guideline exists and is plainly unreasonable. Both the defendant and the Government have the right to appeal an imposed sentence.**18 U.S.C. Sec 3742** Appeals filed (tables 6.1 and 6.2) During 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals received 11,968 criminal appeals, a small increase (up 3% from 2002) when compared to the increase between 2000 to 2001 (23%). Of all appeals, 4% were filed by the Government (not shown in a table). Forty percent of all appeals filed (for which the offense is known) were for drug convictions. Appeals for property and immigration offense convictions comprised 16% of all appeals filed, weapons offenses were 15%, and 5% of appeals filed were for violent offenses. Eighty-five percent of all appeals filed in 2003 were guidelines-based appeals. Fifteen percent of appeals filed were appeals of convictions for crimes committed before 1987, when the sentencing guidelines took effect. Sixty-one percent of guideline-based appeals challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed. Nearly three times as many appeals challenged only the sentence imposed as those that challenged only the conviction (29% versus 11%). The distribution of guideline-based appeals by type of appeal filed (sentence, conviction, or both) was relatively constant across the major offense categories underlying the appeal. However, 66% of post-guideline appeals filed for immigration offenses appealed both the conviction and the sentence, compared to 61% for all criminal offense categories. Appeals terminated (tables 6.2-6.5) A total of 11,678 appeals terminated during 2003. Sixteen percent were appeals of convictions for offenses sentenced under laws in effect prior to the sentencing guidelines. The remaining 84% of appeals terminated were guidelines-based appeals. Of these, 59% were appeals of both the conviction and sentence, 11% were appeals of the conviction only, and 29% were appeals of the sentence only. In over forty percent of all appeals terminated in 2003 (for which the offense is known), drug offense convictions underlie the appeal (42%); the underlying offense in 16% of the appeals was for a property offense; 17% were for immigration offenses; 13% were for weapon offenses; and 5% were appeals for violent offense convictions. Robbery offenses composed 47% and sexual abuse offenses composed 18% of the underlying offenses for appeals of a violent conviction. Sixty-seven percent of property offense appeals were for fraud convictions. Of the 11,678 appeals terminated during 2003, 75% were terminated on the merits, while the remainder were terminated on procedural grounds. An appeal terminated on the merits is an appeal that is terminated based on the factors of the case, not because of technical or procedural reasons. For appeals based on a conviction, 80% of weapon offense appeals and 79% of immigration offense appeals were terminated on the merits. Also terminated on the merits were 77% of appeals based on a violent offense conviction, 74% of appeals based on a drug conviction, and 72% of property offense appeals. Within these major offense categories, 87% of appeals based on kidnapping convictions were terminated on the merits, as were 79% of murder convictions, and 72% of fraud convictions. In most (81%) of the appeals terminated on the merits, the district court ruling was affirmed. In another 3% it was partially affirmed. Among appeals terminated on merits, 81% of all drug and weapon appeals were affirmed, 84% of all immigration and 77% of property appeals were affirmed, as were 80% of violent offense appeals. District court decisions were reversed or remanded back to the court in 8% of the cases. Property and public order offenses had the highest rates of reversal or being remanded back to the court (11% and 10%). Eight percent of weapon offense appeals were reversed or remanded, as were 9% of violent offense appeals. Six percent of appeals were reversed or remanded for drug or immigration offenses. Overall, appeals were dismissed in 8% of cases. Among major offense categories, the highest dismissal rates were for drug and immigration offenses (9%). Chapter notes Tables in chapter 6 were created from the AOUSC appeals database. Records of appeals filed or terminated during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. Data include records of 11,968 criminal appeals filed during fiscal year 2003 and 11,678 appeals terminated during the same period. The unit of analysis in the appeals data is a single case. Most records in the appeals data report on a single appellant. Appeals were classified into the offense categories that represent the underlying offense of conviction. Offenses represent the statutory offense charged against a defendant in a criminal appeal. Offenses were classified by the AOUSC into their four-digit offense codes. These were then aggregated into the offense categories shown in the tables. Chapter 7 Corrections Discussion Tables October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 7.1. Federal offenders under supervision, by offense 7.2. Characteristics of Federal offenders under supervision, by offense 7.3. Outcomes of probation supervision, by offense 7.4. Characteristics of offenders terminating probation supervision 7.5. Outcomes of supervised release, by offense 7.6. Characteristics of offenders terminating supervised release 7.7. Outcomes of parole, by offense 7.8. Characteristics of offenders terminating parole 7.9. Admissions and releases of Federal prisoners, by offense 7.10. Characteristics of Federal prison population, by major offense category 7.11. Number of first releases from Federal prison, by release method and sentence length 7.12. Average time to first release and percent of sentence served, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.13. Mean time served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.14. Percent of sentence served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods 7.15. Characteristics of first releases from prison, by offense, all releases 7.16. Mean time served to first release from Federal prison for prisoners released by standard methods, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter notes Chapter 7 Corrections Federal offenders under supervision (tables 7.1 and 7.2) Post-conviction community supervision of Federal offenders is the responsibility of the Federal Probation System. United States probation officers serve as officers of the court and as agents of the U.S. Parole Commission. They are responsible for the supervision of all persons conditionally released to the community by the courts, the U.S. Parole Commission, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and military authorities. Their supervision mission is "to execute the sentence, control risk, and promote law-abiding behavior".***Footnote 1: Supervision of Federal Offenders (Monograph 109), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Probation and Pretrial Services Division, 1993.*** The objectives of Federal supervision are to enforce compliance with the conditions of release, minimize risk to the public, and reintegrate the offender into a law-abiding lifestyle. There are three major forms of Federal supervision: probation (a sentence in its own right imposed by the court), supervised release (a term of supervision that the court imposes to follow a period of imprisonment) and parole (early release from prison at the discretion of the U.S. Parole Commission). As of the end of fiscal year 2003, there were 108,976 offenders under active Federal supervision, of which most (91%) were felons. Seventy-two percent of these offenders received one of two forms of post-incarceration supervision: supervised release (75,766) or parole (3,239). The remainder (29,971) were under probation supervision. Most of the probationer population had been convicted of either a property felony (38%) or some type of misdemeanor offense (31%). Fifty-four percent of offenders under supervised release and 41% of parolees had been convicted of a drug offense. Among the 108,976 offenders under active Federal supervision at the end of fiscal year 2003, 78% were male; 61% were white; 81% were of non-Hispanic origin; 37% were over age 40 (compared to 31% who were between 31 and 40 years of age and 32% who were 30 or younger); 37% had a high school diploma only (compared to 31% who had at least some college and 33% who had less than a high school diploma); and 60% had no known drug history. Outcomes of offendersterminating supervision(tables 7.3, 7.5, and 7.7) Probation (table 7.3) -- During 2003, 15,294 offenders concluded one or more terms of active probation. Overall, 80% of offenders successfully completed their term of probation, another 18% violated their conditions of probation, and the remaining 2% were administrative closures. Of offenders terminating probation, about 6% committed a new crime. Most committed technical violations, including drug use(4%)or absconding (2%). Offenders convicted of violent offenses were more likely than others to terminate supervision with a violation. During 2003, 32% of probationers convicted of violent offenses violated their conditions of probation, as did 25% of immigration, 22% of weapon, 19% of drug, and 16% of property offenders. Violent and immigration probationers were also more likely to commit new crimes (10-11%) than were probationers convicted of weapon (9%), drug (6%), or property (5%) offenses. Supervised release (table 7.5) -- During 2003, 30,585 offenders concluded terms of supervised release. Overall, 62% of them successfully completed their term of supervised lease; 23% committed technical violations, such as drug use (9%) or absconding (5%); and 13% of these offenders violated their supervision by committing a new crime. The remaining 2% had their supervision administratively terminated. Immigration and weapon offenders were less likely than other offenders to complete a term of supervised release without a violation. Fifty-eight percent of immigration offenders and 51% of weapon offenders violated conditions of supervised release, compared with 34% of drug, and 31% of property offenders. Immigration offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes (30%) than offenders convicted of weapon (18%), violent (17%), drug (12%), or property (10%) offenses. Parole (table 7.7) -- During 2003, 1,504 offenders concluded terms of parole. Overall, 52% of these offenders successfully completed their term of parole. Fifteen percent of these parolees violated their supervision by committing a new crime; 28% committed technical violations, such as drug use (12%) or absconding (6%); and 6% completed their parole term through an administrative case closure. Offenders convicted of violent offenses were less likely than others to complete a term of parole without a violation. Fifty-seven percent of violent offenders violated conditions of parole, while 37% of public order, 36% of property, and 32% of drug offenders violated parole. Weapon and violent offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes (24% and 20%, respectively) than offenders convicted of public order or drug (12% and 10%, respectively) offenses. Characteristics of offenders terminating supervision(tables 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8) Probation (table 7.4) -- Among offenders whose term of probation was concluded, 71% were male; 69% were white and 83% were of non-Hispanic origin; 35% were less than age 31 (compared to 39% over age 40); 26% had less than a high school diploma (compared to 39% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 36% who had at least some college education); and 77% had no known drug history. Younger offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of probation. Offenders ages 16 to 20 were more likely (38%) to violate conditions of supervision than probationers in other age groups -- 25% of those ages 21 to 30 and 13% of those over age 30. Probationers with a history of drug abuse were 5 times more likely to violate probation for drug use than offenders who were not drug abusers. Probationers with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision for other reasons(fugitive status or new crimes) than were other probationers. Probationers with lower levels of education were more likely to violate the conditions of probation than those with higher levels of education. Those who did not graduate high school had a 26% violation rate, those whose highest education was a high school diploma had a 18% violation rate, those with some college had a 13% violation rate, and those with a college degree had only a 6% violation rate. Supervised release (table 7.6) -- Among those who concluded a term of supervised release, 83% were male; 62% were white; 78% were of non-Hispanic origin; 26% were less than age 31 (40% were over age 40); 39% had only some high school (36% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 26% had at least some college); and 52% had no known drug history. Younger offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of supervised release. Offenders under age 30 were more likely to violate conditions of supervision than offenders in other age groups --53% of those under age 31 violated a condition of their supervision compared to 23% of those over age 40. Releasees with a history of drug abuse were nearly 4 times more likely to terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use as were releasees who were not drug abusers. Releasees with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision with technical violations or new crimes. Similarly, releasees with lower levels of education were more likely to violate conditions of supervised release than those with higher levels of education. Those who did not graduate from high school had a 45% violation rate, those whose highest education was a high school diploma had a 35% violation rate, those with some college had a 26% violation rate, and those with a college degree had a 11% violation rate. Parole (table 7.8) -- Among those who concluded a term of parole, 97% were male; 50% were white; 89% were of non-Hispanic origin; 81% were over age 40; 46% had only some high school (37% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 14% had at least some college); and 49% had no known drug history. Offenders with a history of drug abuse and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of parole. Releasees with a history of drug abuse were more than twice as likely to terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use than were releasees who were not drug abusers. Releasees with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate by absconding or committing new crimes. Releasees with lower levels of education were usually more likely to violate conditions of parole than those with higher levels of education. Those whose highest education was a high school diploma had a 41% violation rate, those who did not graduate from high school had a 46% violation rate, those with some college had a 34% violation rate, and those with a college degree had a 26% violation rate. Admissions, releases, and standing population of prisoners in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (table 7.9) The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was created by Congress in 1930 to oversee the development and integration of the Federal prison system. Its mission is to "protect public safety by ensuring that Federal offenders serve their sentences of imprisonment in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. The Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism."***Footnote 2: http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp:'About the Bureau of Prisons'*** Most inmates in BOP facilities were convicted of Federal crimes in U.S. district courts. The BOP also houses material witnesses, probation and other supervision violators, prisoners held for other jurisdictions, and offenders convicted of violating the District of Columbia Criminal Code or sentenced by District of Columbia Superior Court. The Federal prison population grew by 8,943 persons during fiscal year 2003, increasing from 143,516 sentenced prisoners to 152,459.***Footnote 3: Tables 7.9-7.16 exclude prisoners sentenced by a District of Columbia Superior Court judge for violations of the DC Criminal Code.*** The greatest growth was among drug, weapons, and immigration offenders. In 2003 the number of drug offenders in prison grew by 4,621, weapon offenders by 2,272, and immigration offenders by 1,155. Federal prisoners: First releases and time served (tables 7.11-7.14) During 2003, 45,820 prisoners were released from Federal prison for the first time after serving a sentence imposed by a U.S. district court. ***Footnote 4: Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners first released by the BOP during 2003.*** Of these, 40,780 were released by standard means. These standard releasees served an average of 32.9 months in prison -- 91% of the sentence imposed, on average.***Footnote 5:Average time to first release is the number of months in Bureau of Prisons facilities minus credits for time spent in jail prior to final disposition or sentencing. Percent of sentence served is the average percentage of each individual prisoner's percent of total sentence obligation served until first release.*** The remaining 5,040 first releases were released by extraordinary means: 3,877 were released early due to participation in a drug treatment program; 303 were deported; and 860 were released for other reasons -- including commutation, death, or completion of an intensive confinement program. Drug offenders made up the majority of those released by extraordinary means (77%). Time served until first release varied by offense: Violent offenders served an average of 63.5 months; drug offenders served an average of 44.3 months; weapons offenders served an average of 42.7 months; the average number of months served by immigration offenders was 21.1; and property offenders served an average of 16.4 months. Violent, weapon, and drug offenders served more time before first release than did other prisoners. However, property, immigration, and public-order offenders served more of their sentences than did violent, drug, or weapon offenders. Old law offenders -- those who committed crimes before implementation of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in November 1987 -- that were released in 2003 are not shown separately in any table. Less than 1%, or 218, of all released offenders were old law offenders. New law offenders released during 2003 served, on average, 32.4 months in prison (91% of the sentence imposed). Since the Guidelines became effective as of November 1987, new law offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment greater than 218 months could not have been released by standard means as of the end of fiscal year 2003.***Footnote 6:The Federal Sentencing Guidelines allow a prisoner up to 54 days per year for good behavior, so a prisoner sentenced to 218 months in prison in November 1987 could have served 190 months of his or her sentence and been released in 2003.*** They could have been released only for extraordinary reasons such as death, commutation, or treaty transfer.***Footnote 7: Prisoners released for extraordinary reasons have been excluded from all time served and percent of sentence served calculations.*** Characteristics of Federal prisoners (tables 7.10, 7.15,and 7.16) Standing population (table 7.10) -- Of prisoners in Federal prison at the end of 2003, 93% were male, 58% were white, 39% were black, 32% were Hispanic, and 72% were U.S. citizens. Fifty-five percent of the yearend population were 31 years of age or older. This portrait of the Federal prison population was similar across offenses, with several exceptions. Ninety-five percent of immigration offenders were white, 90% were Hispanic and only 4% were U.S. citizens. More than 92% of violent offenders were non-Hispanic and U.S. Citizens. Prisoners released (table 7.15) -- Of prisoners released during 2003, 89% were male, 72% were white, 25% were black, 45% were Hispanic, and 58% were U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent were age 31 or older. These patterns were most similar for those released for drug offenses, and least similar for offenders released for immigration, weapon, and violent offenses. Ninety-seven percent of released immigration offenders were male, 96% were white, 3% were black, 91% were Hispanic and 5% were U.S. Citizens. Time served to first release (table 7.16) -- Of prisoners released by standard methods, males served more time than females (an average of 34.1 months versus 23.0 months); blacks served more time than whites (45.5 months versus 28.8 months); and non-Hispanics served more time than Hispanics (37.3 months versus 27.9 months). Older persons served more time than younger (until over age 40), and U.S. citizens served more time than noncitizens. However, across offenses, this pattern does not apply. For example, blacks served an average of 17 months longer than whites, but among property offenders released from prison, whites served nearly the same amount of time as blacks. Black offenders served an average of 59 months for drug offenses, compared to 39 months for white offenders. Among immigration offenders, non-citizens were in prison an average of 7 months longer than U.S. citizens before being released. Offenders under 19 years old that were convicted of a weapon offense served an average of 17 months longer than did weapons offenders between 19 and 20 years old. Chapter notes Offenders were classified according to their most serious offense at conviction. In cases involving multiple offenses, the AOUSC offense severity hierarchy was applied. The most serious offense was the one with the most severe penalty imposed. If equal prison terms were imposed, or there was no imprisonment, the offense with the highest severity code, as determined by the U.S. Title and Code Criminal Offense Citations Manual, was selected. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 were created using the probation, parole, and supervision data files of the Federal Probations Supervision Information System (FPSIS), which is maintained by the AOUSC. Yearend pending cases (that is, records with offenders who were under active supervision as of the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2003) were selected. Corporate defendants were excluded from table 7.1. Tables 7.3-7.8 were created using the FPSIS data files as well. Only records with one or more terminations of active supervision during October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, were selected. Each termination was counted separately. Technical violations and terminations for new crimes are shown only if supervision terminated with incarceration or removal from active supervision for reasons of a violation. Corporate defendants were excluded from tables 7.3-7.8. Tables 7.9-7.16 were created from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) data files. Tables 7.9 and 7.10 show sentenced prisoners in the custody of the BOP at the end of fiscal year 2003. Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners committed by U.S. district courts or released by the BOP during fiscal year 2003. In these tables, a single person may be counted more than once if that person was committed into, or released from, the BOP more than one time during fiscal year 2003, or if that person appears in more than one column in a table, e.g., commitment and population. Offense categories in these tables were based on combinations of offense designations used by the BOP. They are similar, but may not be directly comparable, to the categories used in other tables of this Compendium. Offenses for some prisoners admitted or released could not be classified; these offenders were included in the totals and are shown as "other prisoners" on the last line of tables. In these tables, offenses were classified according to the offense associated with the longest single sentence actually imposed. Classifications in other tables may have been based on the longest potential sentence allowed by law. Tables 7.9-7.16 distinguish between prisoners committed by U.S. district courts for violations of the U.S. Code and other prisoners. Prisoners released after commitment from U.S. district court are called "first releases." The other admissions and releases include offenders who returned to prison after their first release (such as probation, parole, or supervised release violators), offenders convicted in other courts (such as military courts), and persons admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment, examination, or transfer to another authority. Tables 7.9-7.16 exclude prisoners sentenced by a District of Columbia Superior Court judge for violations of the DC Criminal Code. Offenders who entered or left a prison temporarily -- such as for transit to another location, for health care, or to serve a weekend sentence -- were not counted as admitted or released. Persons who were detained for deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and who were not criminal offenders were also not included in the tables. Table 7.11 distinguishes between standard and extraordinary methods of release from prison. "Standard" releases include the usual methods of exiting from prison, such as full-term sentence expirations, expirations with good time, mandatory releases, and releases to parole. Extraordinary releases are unusual exits from prison, such as death, commutation, and transfer to another facility. Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners committed by U.S. district courts and released by the BOP during fiscal year 2003. Prisoners committed by U.S. district court -- but not for a violation of the U.S. Code, or whose offense could not be classified -- were included in the total but are not shown separately. Table 7.9, however, shows these prisoners separately. Other prisoners -- such as probation and parole violators and prisoners committed by other courts, such as military courts or District of Columbia Superior Court -- were excluded from tables 7.11-7.16, as were other persons admitted to Federal prison but not committed from a U.S. district court. In tables 7.11-7.16, time served was calculated for prisoner's arrival into jurisdiction of the BOP until first release from prison, plus any jail time served and credited. The calculation is the same as that currently used by the BOP. Prisoners serving consecutive sentences may have total imposed sentences exceeding the longest single sentence length. Accordingly, time actually served may exceed the longest single imposed sentence. The percent of sentenced served (in tables 7.12 and 7.14) is the average of each individual prisoner's percent of sentence served. Because other publications may include different groups of prisoners, calculate time served differently, or use a different offense classification, data in tables in this Compendium may differ from estimates of time served in previous publications by the BOP or in publications based on other data sources. Time served, as reported in tables 7.11-7.16 in this Compendium, may not be directly comparable to the calculation of time served in the 1993 and prior compendia. The methodology in this report uses additional information to identify prison commitment dates and account for jail credit. In previous reports, jail credits were overestimated in some cases. In addition, time served estimates reported in tables 7.12-7.14 and 7.16 include only prisoners released by standard methods (expirations, mandatory releases, and releases to parole). Prisoners released by extraordinary means (death, commutation, transfer, etc.) are excluded from the time served calculations in these tables. Table 7.9 shows all persons admitted to, or released from, the jurisdiction of the BOP during fiscal year 2003, except those prisoners who were committed by a District of Columbia Superior Court judge. Prisoners counted in this column are the same as prisoners included in tables 7.11, 7.12, and 7.13. Table 7.9 shows in separate columns, as well as in the total, prisoners committed by a U.S. district court -- but not for a violation of the U.S. code, or whose offense could not be classified. Other columns in table 7.9 include prisoners who were committed by other courts, returned to prison for violation of the conditions of supervision, or were received for examination, treatment, or transfer to another jurisdiction. Offenders who returned to prison for a violation of the conditions of supervision without a new court commitment, were classified according to the offense with the longest single sentence originally imposed at conviction. At the end of fiscal year 2003, 152,459 Federal prisoners were under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons in 103 facilities. The total population under the jurisdiction of the BOP included 146,212 inmates in the 180 BOP facilities such as penitentiaries, Federal correctional institutions, prison camps, and medical centers, 7,862 inmates in contract facilities such as halfway houses or were under home confinement, and 18,425 inmates in privately-managed secure facilities. Glossary Acquittal -- legal judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges against him. Administrative case closure -- The termination of a community supervision case due to administrative reasons such as: long-term hospitalization, death, deportation, incarceration in an unrelated case, or at the administrative discretion of the Chief Probation Officer. Affirmed -- in the appellate courts, the decree or order is declared valid and will stand as rendered in the lower court. Agriculture violations -- violations of the Federal statutes on agriculture and conservation: for example, violations of the Agricultural Acts, Insecticide Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act,1921; also violations of laws concerning plant quarantine and the handling of animals pertaining to research (7 U.S.C., except sections on food stamps (fraud); also 16 U.S.C. sections relating generally to violations in operating public parks, such as trespassing for hunting, shooting, and fishing). Antitrust violations -- offenses relating to Federal antitrust statutes, which aim to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price fixing, monopolies (for example, 15 U.S.C. sec sec 1, 3, 8, 20, and 70(i)), and discrimination in pricing or in furnishing services or facilities (15 U.S.C. sec sec 13(c) and 13(e)). Appeal -- a review by a higher court