The 2026 Sentencing Amendments Are Much Smaller Than the Alerts Say: What Actually Takes Effect November 1

If you have read a client alert about the 2026 sentencing amendments in the last few months, there is a good chance it told you the fraud loss table was cut from sixteen tiers to eight, that a new post-offense rehabilitation adjustment is coming at section 3E1.2, and that the sophisticated means enhancement was narrowed. None of that is in the package the Commission actually adopted. The loss table still runs from subsection (A) through subsection (P), sixteen tiers, exactly as it does today. What passed on April 16 is narrower and simpler than the coverage suggests, and for federal defendants in Florida the practical question it creates is about timing, not doctrine.

The Commission voted on April 16, 2026. What it adopted is far narrower than what the December 2025 proposals promised, and far narrower than what several published alerts describe.

Key Takeaways

• The adopted economic crime amendment is an inflation adjustment only. The proposed restructuring of section 2B1.1 was not adopted.
• The loss table still has sixteen tiers, (A) through (P). Reports that it was cut to eight describe a proposal that did not pass.
• Proposed section 3E1.2 post-offense rehabilitation, the sophisticated means narrowing, and the Zone expansion were all dropped.
• Thresholds rose roughly 36 percent. More than $550,000 becomes more than $750,000 for a 14-level increase.
• The amendments are not retroactive and apply to defendants sentenced on or after November 1, 2026 in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida alike.

What the Commission Actually Adopted

The adopted compilation has seven parts: Simplification, Inflationary Adjustments, Drug Offenses, Multiple Counts, Sentencing Options, Miscellaneous, and Technical. For economic crime defendants the operative part is the second one, and it does exactly what its title says. It adjusts the monetary tables in sections 2B1.1, 2B2.1, 2B3.1, 2R1.1, 2T4.1, 5E1.2, and 8C2.4 for inflation, plus monetary figures in fifteen other Chapter Two guidelines.

The Commission used a multiplier drawn from the Consumer Price Index. One dollar in 2014 equals one dollar and thirty-six cents in 2025. These tables were last adjusted for inflation in 2015. That is the whole of the economic crime change. Professor Douglas Berman, writing the same afternoon, called the package modest rather than major and wondered aloud about opportunities lost.

The Loss Table, With the Real Numbers

Here is what changed in the section 2B1.1 loss table. The threshold for no increase moves from $6,500 to $9,000. More than $95,000 becomes more than $150,000 for an 8-level increase. More than $150,000 becomes more than $200,000 for 10 levels. More than $250,000 becomes more than $350,000 for 12. More than $550,000 becomes more than $750,000 for 14. More than $1,500,000 becomes more than $2,000,000 for 16. More than $3,500,000 becomes more than $5,000,000 for 18. More than $9,500,000 becomes more than $15,000,000 for 20.

Two tiers moved much further than the rest. The eight-level tier and the twenty-level tier both carry a 1.58 multiplier, against 1.33 to 1.43 for most others. Those are the two places where a defendant is most likely to pick up a two-level drop.

There is no shortcut here. The only way to know whether the new tables help a client is to run the loss figure against the 2025 manual and the 2026 manual and compare the two ranges.

Who Gets Two Levels, and Who Gets Nothing

Worked examples. A $100,000 loss currently sits above the $95,000 threshold and adds 8 levels. On November 1 it falls below $150,000 and adds 6. A $600,000 loss currently adds 14. After November 1 it falls below $750,000 and adds 12. A $12,000,000 loss currently adds 20. After November 1 it falls below $15,000,000 and adds 18. Each of those is two levels, which in the middle of the table is frequently a year or more.

The benefit is not universal, and this is where careless reading hurts clients. A defendant whose loss is $800,000 gets nothing, because $800,000 exceeds the new $750,000 threshold and still adds 14. The gain exists only for defendants whose loss falls inside the gap between the old threshold and the new one.

"Anyone quoting a flat two-level reduction has not run the number."— Aaron M. Cohen, Principal Attorney, AMC Defense Law

What Did Not Pass, and Why the Confusion Matters

The December 2025 proposals were genuinely ambitious. They included a restructured section 2B1.1 loss table collapsing sixteen tiers into eight, a narrowed sophisticated means enhancement, a new adjustment at section 3E1.2 for post-offense rehabilitation, changes to the sentencing zones, and new mitigating factors for defendants who acted under employer pressure or who stopped and self-reported before learning of an investigation. Several published alerts describe those as adopted.

They are not in the adopted text. Search the reader-friendly compilation the Commission submitted to Congress and there is no section 3E1.2, no sophisticated means amendment, no Zone B or Zone C revision, and no noneconomic harm enhancement. The loss table appears in full, still lettered (A) through (P).

This matters for a concrete reason. A defendant who reads that a post-offense rehabilitation adjustment is coming may reasonably conclude there is a guideline-based credit waiting at sentencing. There is not.

Not Retroactive, Which Makes This a Timing Question

Courts apply the guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing. The amendments carry no retroactive designation, so they reach defendants sentenced on or after November 1, 2026 and no one else. There is no mechanism here for a defendant already sentenced to seek a reduction.

That turns the whole package into a scheduling problem for anyone with a fall sentencing date. If your loss figure sits in one of the gaps, a continuance past November 1 is worth two offense levels. If your loss figure sits above the new threshold anyway, a continuance buys nothing and may cost goodwill with the court. The answer is case-specific and it requires actually running the calculation under both manuals.

The package went to Congress on April 30. The statutory review window under 28 U.S.C. section 994(p) is running now, and November 1 is a hard line between two different guideline manuals.

What This Means for a Florida Federal Sentencing

For a healthcare fraud conspiracy charged under 18 U.S.C. section 1349 or a substantive count under section 1347, where the government has aggregated billing across years and providers, the alleged loss in South Florida cases very often lands in the $1,500,000 to $15,000,000 band. Those are precisely the tiers that moved. Every pending Southern District of Florida and Middle District of Florida sentencing in that range should be modeled both ways this month.

The honest summary is that this was a maintenance cycle. The Commission caught the monetary tables up to eleven years of inflation and cleaned up guidelines that were rarely applied. It did not restructure economic crime sentencing, and the reforms the defense bar wanted most did not survive.

That does not make it unimportant. A two-level reduction is real, and it is free to anyone whose sentencing falls on the right side of November 1 with a loss figure in the right band. What it does mean is that the advocacy still comes from where it always has: attacking the loss calculation, filing PSR objections that contest enhancements on the record, and building a section 3553(a) presentation that gives the judge a reason to go below the range.

Mistakes to Avoid Between Now and November 1

Relying on a client alert instead of the adopted text. Several are wrong on the restructuring. Pull the Commission's own compilation before putting a number in a sentencing memorandum.

Assuming a continuance is automatically the right move. It is a two-level question, not a philosophy. Run the loss figure against both tables first.

Treating post-offense rehabilitation as a guideline adjustment. It is a section 3553(a) argument. Build the record anyway, with dated documentation, restitution receipts, verified employment, and treatment records, but argue it as a variance.

Talking to federal agents without counsel while a case is still pre-charge. Nothing in this package changes that. The same discipline that governs any federal investigation defense applies, and a pre-indictment defense lawyer influences the alleged loss figure long before any table is consulted.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Sentencing This Fall

If you or a client has a sentencing date between now and the end of the year in a fraud, healthcare fraud, or tax matter, the loss figure should be run against both the 2025 and 2026 tables before anything is filed. AMC Defense Law represents individuals and entities in federal investigations and prosecutions from Boca Raton, throughout Florida, and in federal districts nationwide, with an emphasis on pre-indictment intervention and sentencing strategy. Consultations are confidential.

AMC Defense Law models pending sentencings under both the 2025 and 2026 guidelines manuals to determine whether a continuance past November 1 is worth two offense levels.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day to get help.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Guideline calculations turn on the facts of each case, the charging district, and the assigned judge.