District comparisons · FY2015–FY2024
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.
- 57.7
- Natl avg months FY2024
- 85
- Districts ranked
- 137
- Harshest - Middle Tennessee
- 23
- Most lenient - New Mexico
The spread
Average federal sentences range from 137 months in the Middle Tennessee District to 23 months in New Mexico - a 6.1× gap driven largely by each district's offense mix.
- 137 mo
- Harshest - Middle Tennessee
- 23 mo
- Most lenient - New Mexico
- 57.7 mo
- National average
- 85
- Districts with ≥100 cases
Harshest Districts by Average Sentence (FY2024)
Districts with the longest average federal sentences, among those with 100+ cases
- Middle Tennessee
Middle Tennessee
137 months
- Alaska
Alaska
125.2 months
- Northern Ohio
Northern Ohio
120.2 months
- Western Kentucky
Western Kentucky
116.6 months
- Northern Illinois
Northern Illinois
108.2 months
- Western Arkansas
Western Arkansas
106.3 months
- Kansas
Kansas
106.1 months
- Southern Florida
Southern Florida
99 months
- Arizona
Arizona
97.8 months
- Northern West Virginia
Northern West Virginia
97.8 months
- Eastern Wisconsin
Eastern Wisconsin
97.7 months
- Northern Mississippi
Northern Mississippi
96.8 months
What this shows The Middle Tennessee District tops the list at 137.0 months, well above the 57.7-month national average, reflecting a caseload weighted toward longer-sentence offenses.
The sentencing landscape: caseload vs severity
Harshest Sentencing Districts
Districts with the longest average federal sentences above the national average.
Most Lenient Districts
Districts with the shortest average federal sentences below the national average.
Highest Departure Rates
Districts most frequently departing from Sentencing Guidelines.
Highest Caseload Districts
Districts processing the highest volume of federal criminal cases.
Browse Federal Districts
Direct links to district-level sentencing pages. View per-district averages, departure rates, and offense mix.
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Central California
- Central Illinois
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Eastern Arkansas
- Eastern California
- Eastern Kentucky
- Eastern Louisiana
- Eastern Michigan
- Eastern Missouri
- Eastern New York
- Eastern North Carolina
- Eastern Pennsylvania
- Eastern Tennessee
- Eastern Texas
- Eastern Virginia
- Eastern Washington
- Eastern Wisconsin
- Guam
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Middle Alabama
How Rankings Are Calculated
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.