Eastern Washington vs. Montana
Federal sentencing comparison · FY2024 · Source: USSC
Guideline Compliance Breakdown
Eastern Washington
9th CircuitMontana
9th CircuitFull Metrics Comparison
| Metric | Eastern Washington | Montana | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avg Sentence (months) | 69.1 | 30.3 | Montana |
| Total Cases | 382 | 1,696 | |
| Within Guidelines % | 4% | 35% | Montana |
| Above Guidelines % | 5% | 0% | Montana |
| Below Guidelines % | N/A | N/A | |
| Guilty Plea Rate | 96% | 77% | |
| Prison Sentence Rate | 89% | 90% | |
| Disparity vs. National | -11.9% | -11.2% | Washington |
Top Offenses (FY2024)
What This Eastern Washington vs. Montana Comparison Reveals
In FY2024, the Eastern Washington District (9th Circuit) handled 382 federal sentencings with an average imposed term of 69.1 months, while the Montana District (9th Circuit) handled 1,696 cases at an average of 30.3 months. That is a 38.8-month gap — the Eastern District sentences longer on average. Case volume alone tells part of the story: Montana processed roughly 4.4× more defendants than Eastern, which affects guideline compliance patterns and the mix of offenses each court sees.
Guideline compliance diverges as well. In Eastern Washington, 4% of cases were sentenced within the guideline range, 5% above, and N/A% below, with Booker variances in N/A% of dispositions. In Montana, the corresponding figures were 35% within, 0% above, N/A% below, and N/A% Booker variances. Guilty-plea rates ran at 96% vs. 77%, and prison-sentence rates at 89% vs. 90% respectively — metrics that capture both charging practice and judicial discretion across the two courts.
Set against the nationwide benchmark for the same offense mix, Eastern Washington ran a disparity of -11.9% and Montana ran -11.2%. That comparison adjusts for the offense mix each district actually handles, so it isolates court-level patterns from pure caseload composition. Readers should still treat these as aggregate descriptive statistics — individual cases turn on criminal history, specific guideline adjustments, cooperation agreements, and statutory mandatory minimums that the district averages cannot resolve. This data is presented for research and educational purposes only and is not legal advice.
About This Comparison
Source: United States Sentencing Commission (USSC), Individual Offender Datafiles, FY2015–FY2024. Percentages are calculated from the total sentenced cases for each district in FY2024. "Within guidelines" means the judge imposed a sentence within the prescribed guidelines range. "Booker variance" reflects sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) outside the guidelines range.
Source: USSC Commission Datafiles · How we compute these metrics
Related District Comparisons
Other sentencing comparisons involving these districts or their circuit peers.