Dear FAMMily,

As you may know, the Sentencing Commission has started its yearly process of reviewing and amending the sentencing guidelines. Thus far, the Commission has proposed a variety of changes, ranging from amendments to the drug guidelines to amendments creating a new reduction for rehabilitative behavior. Now is your chance to make your voice heard, and, given the significance of the proposals this year, your voice is more important than ever!

There are a lot of proposed amendments this cycle. And there are two rounds of comments. In this first round, our comments will focus on:

Methamphetamine offenses – multiple options to amend how methamphetamine offenses are calculated.
Fentanyl offenses – proposed amendments to add new enhancements for offenses including fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.
Reduction for post-offense rehabilitation – a proposed adjustment that would provide a reduction for demonstrating positive behavior after the offense but before sentencing; and
Sophisticated means – a proposal to amend the guidelines in a way that could increase the sentencing range for any offense if it involved sophisticated means.

If you want to comment on other proposals, you can read all of the proposed amendments on the Commission’s website.

We have drafted some proposed language for you to use, which outlines our suggested positions on each of the proposals. Please consider adding personal stories to the proposed language below. The deadline to comment is February 10, 2026. You can submit your comments by clicking on the “submission portal” at this link: https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/public-comment.

Suggested language for proposed amendments:

Dear Chair Reeves,

Thank you for allowing stakeholders and impacted people to use our voice to help inform the Commission’s work revising the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Methamphetamine offenses - The Commission’s own data shows that methamphetamine sentences are too high and based on outdated notions about meth trafficking offenses. I support the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the purity disparity for methamphetamine offenses. I believe that option 1, which sets the same quantity thresholds for all methamphetamine offenses, is the most simple and effective way to eliminate the disparity. Moreover, the meth weight should be tied to, at most, a mixture of methamphetamine. Option 2, in contrast, which sets different base offense levels based on a set of factors, is complex for courts and unpredictable for people who are impacted by drug sentences; Option 2 does not provide the clarity or ease of application that Option 1 does.

Fentanyl enhancements - Fentanyl offenses, like meth offenses, have received a lot of attention recently. I am sensitive to the concerns about opioid use disorder and overdose deaths, in fact, our community of impacted people knows all too well the harms of opioid use and overdose. But I strongly oppose the proposed enhancements to fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. The enhancements would substantially increase sentences for individuals who are often low-level participants in the drug market. Moreover, increased time in prison does not address the underlying public health problem of opioid use disorder.

Post-offense rehabilitation – I am thrilled to see that the Commission is considering post-offense rehabilitation as a basis to reduce someone’s sentencing range. The current post-offense conduct reductions (§3E1.1 and §5K1.1) are driven by accepting responsibility for the offenses or by cooperation with authorities. But, I know how transformative a person’s post-offense rehabilitative conduct can be, and how the ability to reform oneself is key to the safety of the community long term. As the Commission fine-tunes this proposal, I would encourage it to consider that the opportunities afforded to each person post-offense are different. As such, the proposed guideline should be adopted and should allow for sufficient individualized assessments of the efforts made by the individual.

Sophisticated means – I oppose creating a new chapter 3 enhancement for use of sophisticated means. There are already long-standing problems with the current definition of sophisticated means in the guidelines. Namely, sophisticated means is ambiguous, difficult to apply, and duplicative of other enhancements, likely subjecting people to double punishment. The new proposed definition does not go far enough to remedy these problems. And, certainly, the Commission should not compound those problems by expanding them to other guideline areas.

Thank you for considering my views!