District comparisons · FY2015–FY2025

Federal District Rankings

Which U.S. district courts sentence hardest, which depart most from the guidelines, and where the federal caseload concentrates, ranked from USSC case-level data.

51.9
Natl avg months FY2025
88
Districts ranked
129
Harshest - Southern Iowa
17
Most lenient - Arizona

The spread

Average federal sentences range from 129 months in the Southern Iowa District to 17 months in Arizona - a 7.4× gap driven largely by each district's offense mix.

129 mo
Harshest - Southern Iowa
17 mo
Most lenient - Arizona
51.9 mo
National average
88
Districts with ≥100 cases

Where ranked districts sit vs the national average

Exclusive severity bands for the 88 districts with 100+ FY2025 cases. Segments sum to the ranked set, not the top-12 leader bars below. A district lands "near" when its average is within 10% of the national mean.

Harshest Districts by Average Sentence (FY2025)

Districts with the longest average federal sentences, among those with 100+ cases

months

What this shows The Southern Iowa District tops the list at 129.3 months, well above the 51.9-month national average, reflecting a caseload weighted toward longer-sentence offenses.

Source U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles As of FY2025

The sentencing landscape: caseload vs severity

Each of the 88 districts with 100+ cases, plotted by total caseload (horizontal) and average sentence (vertical), FY2025. The crosshair marks the national average sentence and the median caseload, so the upper band is harsher-than-average districts, the right band the busiest. Source: USSC Individual Offender Datafiles. 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Cases (FY2025) (X) and Avg sentence (months) (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Busy & harshQuiet & harshBusy & lenientQuiet & lenient 05001,0001,500 6080100120140 Cases (FY2025) Avg sentence (months)
Each of the 88 districts with 100+ cases, plotted by total caseload (horizontal) and average sentence (vertical), FY2025. The crosshair marks the national average sentence and the median caseload, so the upper band is harsher-than-average districts, the right band the busiest. Source: USSC Individual Offender Datafiles.
⬆

Harshest Sentencing Districts

Districts with the longest average federal sentences above the national average.

View ranking
⬇

Most Lenient Districts

Districts with the shortest average federal sentences below the national average.

View ranking
↔

Highest Departure Rates

Districts most frequently departing from Sentencing Guidelines.

View ranking
📊

Highest Caseload Districts

Districts processing the highest volume of federal criminal cases.

View ranking

Browse Federal Districts

Direct links to district-level sentencing pages. View per-district averages, departure rates, and offense mix.

How Rankings Are Calculated

Harshest / Most Lenient Ranked by average sentence length (months) for districts with 100+ cases in FY2025.
Departure Rates Percentage of sentences departing from the calculated guideline range, above plus below the range, among cases with a determinable range. Variances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are counted within the above/below shares.
Caseload Total federal criminal cases sentenced in FY2025.
Data Source United States Sentencing Commission annual datafiles. Minimum 100 cases required for inclusion.

How PlainSentencing Rankings Are Compiled

Our rankings are computed directly from the upstream dataset, not editorially curated and not influenced by advertisers. Each ranking surfaces a clear, reproducible metric (for example, count of records per jurisdiction, share of records within a category, or rate per capita), and the underlying numbers are visible on the associated record pages so you can verify them. We recompute rankings whenever the upstream data refreshes, and we publish the refresh cadence on the methodology page.

What Rankings Mean (and What They Do Not)

A ranking is a useful lens, it tells you where to start looking, but it is not a judgment about quality, safety, or reputation. Being at the top of a count-based ranking typically reflects scale: more records in a jurisdiction, more entities in a category. It does not mean "better" or "worse." Whenever a ranking could be misread as a quality claim, we include an explanatory note on the page. When a ranking is rate-based (per capita, per thousand, share), we describe the denominator so you can sanity-check whether the normalization fits your question.

Why We Publish These Rankings

Rankings make large public datasets navigable. Most visitors arrive with a question ("Which jurisdiction has the most records?" or "Where is this category concentrated?") and benefit from seeing a ranked list with direct links to the full records. Publishing ranked views of public data is a long-established practice in civic journalism; we are careful to surface the raw numbers, link to the official source, and avoid editorial spin. If a ranking ever implies a value judgment not supported by the data, please email us at the address on the contact page and we will review the wording.

Methodology, Sources, and Corrections

Every ranking is derived from the source dataset linked on the methodology page. We do not blend proprietary signals; we do not substitute editor opinion for data. If you believe a ranking is miscomputed or that a record is misclassified, please contact us with the specific record ID and the expected correction, and we will investigate within the next refresh cycle. Corrections that affect the published ranking are rolled forward immediately; minor formatting fixes go out with the next scheduled refresh.