Criminal Defense Lawyers

Multiple Counts Grouping Rules: What Federal Defendants Need to Know

Multiple Counts Don’t Mean Multiple Sentences—But Your Prosecutor Wants You to Think They Do

You just opened your federal indictment and saw “Count 1… Count 2… Count 3… Count 4… Count 5…” Your chest tightened. Five seperate counts. Five charges you barely understand. Does that mean five times the prison sentance? Your facing what looks like 50+ years and the math is terrifying.

Here’s what the prosecuter won’t tell you upfront: That indictment listing six counts doesn’t mean six times the prison time. Federal sentencing guidelines include something called “grouping rules” that can dramatically reduce your exposure. But understanding how they work—and more importantly, what they CAN’T do—might be the diffrence between hope and despair.

You Just Got Indicted With Multiple Counts—What This Actually Means

Look, here’s the deal. When you see multiple counts on an indictment, your brain imediately starts doing terrifying math. Count 1 carries 10 years maximum. Count 2 carries 10 years. Count 3 carries another 10 years. Thats 30 years total, right? Your gonna die in prison.

Wrong.

That’s not how federal sentencing works in most cases, and the goverment knows it. But they ain’t gonna tell you that when your sitting across from the AUSA trying to scare you into a plea deal based off those inflated numbers.

Here’s what “multiple counts” actually means: Each count is a seperate legal charge that the prosecution must prove individually. You can be found guilty on some counts and not guilty on others. Each count has its own elements the goverment must establish beyond a reasonable doubt.

But—and this is critical—multiple counts arising from related conduct often get “grouped” together under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 3, Part D. When counts group, there treated as a single offense for sentencing purposes. This can cut your guideline range in half or more.

For example, lets say your charged with:

• Count 1: Wire fraud (victim: Bank A, amount: $50,000)
• Count 2: Wire fraud (victim: Bank A, amount: $30,000)
• Count 3: Bank fraud (victim: Bank A, amount: $20,000)
• Count 4: Money laundering (proceeds from above fraud)

At first glance, that looks like four seperate crimes. But under federal grouping rules, Counts 1-3 will almost definately group together because they involve the same victim (Bank A) and are part of the same course of conduct. Count 4 might group with them to if its based on the same harm.

Here’s what most people don’t realize: Federal prosecutors file an average of 2.3 times more counts then they need to. Why? Leverage. They want you terrified of that 40-year exposure so you’ll plead guilty to something less without fighting. Its called “charge stacking” and irregardless of how it feels, its completely legal.

The acquitted conduct issue is even more insidious. If you go to trial and win on 3 counts but lose on 1, the judge can still consider the conduct from those acquitted counts when calculating you’re sentence. We’ll get to that nightmare later, but for now, understand this: multiple counts are as much a negotiation tactic as there a reflection of what actually happened.

Why Prosecutors Load Up Your Indictment (The Stack and Settle Strategy)

Real talk: your confused why the indictment charges you with wire fraud AND bank fraud AND aggrevated identity theft AND money laundering for what seems like the exact same conduct. It feels like piling on becuase it IS piling on.

Let me explain the prosecuter’s playbook. Inside the Department of Justice, there’s an unwritten metric that gets tracked: count reduction through plea bargaining. When an AUSA gets you to plead guilty to 3 counts in exchange for dismissing 5 counts, that gets recorded as a “successful negotiation.” Charge stacking is enabled by federal rules that permit prosecution of multiple offenses arising from the same conduct.

Here’s the thing—prosecutors could of charged you with 3 counts instead of 8. They have the discretion. But if they only charge 3 counts, they got nothing to “give away” in plea negotiations. By charging 8 counts, they create the illusion of leniancy when they “agree” to let you plead to 4.

This ain’t a conspiracy theory.

Its prosecutorial strategy 101, taught at DOJ training seminars. The indictment is the opening bid in a negotiation. The prosecutor knows that most of those counts will either get dismissed or grouped together at sentencing. But YOU don’t know that. Your family don’t know that. And that fear is the entire point—for all intensive purposes, the indictment is designed to be a escape goat for forcing plea deals.

Consider the average federal fraud case. The goverment charges:

• Wire fraud (5 counts—one for each wire transfer)
• Bank fraud (2 counts—one for each bank involved)
• Money laundering (3 counts—one for each transaction)

That’s 10 counts. Each count carries up to 20-30 years. On paper, your looking at 200+ years. But here’s the reality: under grouping rules, all 10 counts will likely collapse into 1 or 2 groups. Your actual guideline range might be 4-6 years, not 200.

But the AUSA won’t lead with that information. They’ll lead with the 200-year nightmare and offer you a “deal” to plead guilty to 4 counts. You think your getting 80% off. In reality, those 4 counts were gonna group anyways, so your sentence wouldn’t of changed much whether you plead to 4 counts or went to trial on all 10 and lost.

This is why understanding grouping is critical. Once you know the math, the indictment becomes less of a mute point for terror and more of a negotiating document. The question becomes: which counts have mandatory minimums? Which counts won’t group? Which counts can we fight?

How Federal Grouping Rules Actually Work (The Four Catagories)

Your attorney mentioned “grouping” but probably didn’t explain it in plain English. Let me break it down. The federal sentencing guidelines at §3D1.2 provide four seperate ways that counts can group together. If any of these four catagories apply, the counts are treated as one offense for calculating you’re guideline range.

Category 1: Counts Involving Substantially the Same Harm (§3D1.2(a))

This applys when multiple counts punish the same injury or damage. For example, if you assaulted one person and got charged with both assault with a deadly weapon AND assault resulting in serious bodily injury, those counts involve substantially the same harm—the injuries to that one victim. They group.

Category 2: Same Victim, Same Act or Transaction (§3D1.2(b))

This is where alot of cases group. If the counts involve the same victim and occured as part of the same criminal episode, they group. Example: You defrauded Bank A through three seperate wire transfers. Thats three counts of wire fraud. But there all against the same victim (Bank A) and part of the same scheme. They group under (b).

Here’s the grouping hack most lawyers miss—and this is based off actual case law: the definition of “victim” is broader then you think. In white-collar cases, courts have held that “the banking system” can be considered a single victim, meaning fraud against three different banks might still group. I mean, think about it—if the harm is to the integrity of the financial system, thats one victim irregardless of how many banks you hit.

Category 3: Offenses Covered by the Same Guideline with Similar Underlying Conduct (§3D1.2(c))

This groups counts that use the same offense guideline. For example, if you commited fraud on three seperate occasions against three different victims, each count would normally be seperate. But if there all covered by the fraud guideline (§2B1.1), they might group under (c) based off the similar conduct.

Category 4: One Count is Incidental to or Embodies Conduct Treated as an Adjustment in Another Count (§3D1.2(d))

This is the confusing one. Example: You commited bank fraud (Count 1) and used a fake ID to do it (aggrevated identity theft, Count 2). The identity theft is “embodies” in the fraud—its how you accomplished it. Under (d), they group because the identity theft is treated as part of the fraud.

The rule states—wait, actually let me back up—the key to understanding (d) is that one offense has to be a “means” of committing the other offense. If Count A is just the tool you used to commit Count B, they group.

But here’s the catch, and this is where the grouping mirage happens: even if all your counts group into one big group, that doesn’t mean you get sentenced as if you only committed one crime. The guidelines add “units” for additional conduct. If you defrauded 10 victims for $500,000, grouping those 10 counts together doesn’t ignore the fact that there were 10 victims and $500,000. The loss amount and victim count still drive up your offense level wiht teh group.

This is case and point why you need to read your Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) carefully. The probation officer calculates grouping, but they might get it wrong. They might not apply the “same victim” rule aggresively enough. They might not see that two counts should group under (d). If you don’t object within 14 days, you waive the issue—visa versa of what you might think, silence isn’t golden in PSR objections.

What Grouping Can’t Save You From—Reality Checks

Look, I’m just being real with you.

You just learned about grouping and your feeling hopeful for the first time since your indictment arrived. But I gotta tell you what nobody else will: grouping ain’t gonna save you if certain other factors are in play. And ignoring these realities is per say setting yourself up for devastation when the sentance comes down.

Mandatory Minimums Override Everything

Here’s what nobody tells you, and this is crucial: mandatory minimums override all grouping calculations. If any single count you’re convicted on carries a mandatory minimum—say, 10 years for drug quantity or 5 years for using a firearm during a crime of violence—then grouping becomes academic. Your doing the mandatory minimum irregardless of what the grouped guideline range calculates to.

Let’s say you got charged with:

• Count 1: Drug trafficking (500 grams of meth = 10-year mandatory minimum)
• Count 2: Possession with intent to distribute (same drugs)
• Count 3: Using a firearm in drug trafficking (5-year mandatory minimum consecutive)

Counts 1 and 2 will definately group. Great. But Count 1 has a 10-year mandatory minimum and Count 3 has a 5-year consecutive mandatory minimum. Your doing 15 years minimum no matter what grouping says. Even if the grouped guideline range calculates to 6-8 years, the judge has no choice—mandatory minimums control. Its statute, not guidelines.

At the end of the day, this is why charge bargaining matters more then grouping in mandatory minimum cases. If the prosecutor agrees to dismiss Count 3 (the gun charge), you just saved yourself 5 years. That’s more valuable then any grouping argument could of gave you.

The Relevant Conduct Backdoor

Here’s the thing—and I’ve seen this wreck havoc on defendants who thought they was in the clear: even dismissed or uncharged conduct can come back to haunt you through “relevant conduct” rules under §1B1.3. Grouping might reduce your counts from 8 to 2, but if the dismissed 6 counts involved conduct that’s “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme,” that conduct still gets factored into your sentance calculation.

Example: You plead guilty to 2 counts of wire fraud. The goverment dismisses 6 other fraud counts as part of the plea deal. You think your exposure just dropped by 75%. Wrong. Then the PSR comes back and includes all 8 fraud instances as “relevent conduct.” The loss amount from all 8 counts gets added together. The victim count from all 8 counts gets added. Your offense level is almost the same as if you’d been convicted on all 8 counts.

This is what I mean when I say grouping can’t save you from relevant conduct. The guidelines look at the “entire scope of the offense,” not just the counts of conviction. Dismissing counts in a plea deal don’t make the conduct dissapear—it just changes the label from “count of conviction” to “relevant conduct.” The math stays brutal.

So when your negotiating a plea deal, don’t just count how many counts get dismissed. Look at what the plea agreement says about relevant conduct. Does it limit relevant conduct to specific transactions? Does it stipulate to a specific loss amount? Those details matter way more then the number of counts.

The Acquitted Conduct Nightmare

This is supposably the most unfair part of federal sentencing, and it’s definately something you need to understand before deciding whether to go to trial. If you go to trial and the jury acquits you on 3 counts but convicts you on 2, the judge can still consider the conduct from those acquitted counts when calculating you’re sentance.

Let that sink in.

You was found “not guilty” on 3 counts—the goverment didn’t prove them beyond a reasonable doubt—but the judge can still punish you for them based off a lower standard of proof (preponderence of the evidence, not reasonable doubt).

The Supreme Court said this is legal in United States v. Watts, and irregardless of how unjust it feels, its still the law in 2025. Post-Booker, some judges use there discretion to give less weight to acquitted conduct, but many don’t.

Here’s the nightmare scenario: You go to trial on 6 counts. The jury acquits you on 4 counts but convicts you on 2. Without grouping, those 2 counts might give you an offense level of 18 (around 2-3 years). But then the PSR includes the acquitted conduct as relevant conduct, and suddenly your offense level is 26 (around 5-7 years). You actually would of been better off pleading guilty to all 6 counts, becuase at least then you might of gotten acceptance of responsibility and a lower sentence.

This is why 97% of federal cases plead out. The trial penalty is real, and acquitted conduct enhancements are a huge part of it. Going to trial with multiple counts is playing Russian roulette with your life—even if you win on most counts, the conduct from the losses can still bury you. Could care less what TV shows depict, federal trial is a mute point for most defendants once you understand the math.

Multiple Indictments Don’t Group

One more reality check: grouping only applys to counts within the same indictment or counts that have been consolidated for sentencing. If your facing charges in seperate indictments—even in the same district, even for related conduct—the grouping rules don’t apply between the cases.

Example: You got indicted in Case 1 for fraud in January 2024 (4 counts). Then you got indicted in Case 2 for related fraud in March 2024 (3 counts). Unless the goverment files a superseding indictment that combines both cases, or unless the judge consolidates them for sentencing, the 7 counts won’t group together. You’ll get sentenced seperately on each case, and the sentances might run consecutive (one after the other) instead of concurrent (at the same time).

Counterintuitively, this means you might actually want the cases consolidated via superseding indictment, becuase that triggers grouping protections. This is statute of limitations timing stuff your lawyer needs to navigate carefully—take for granite that they know this at your own risk.

How to Read Your PSR and Spot Grouping Errors

The Pre-Sentence Report just arrived, and there’s a whole section labeled “Offense Level Calculation” with groups, units, and adjustments. It looks like advanced calculus. But you need to understand it becuase PSR objections are due in 14 days, and if you don’t object now, you probaly waive the issue forever.

Here’s what to look for in your PSR’s grouping section:

Step 1: Verify Which Counts Grouped Together

The PSR will list something like “Group 1: Counts 1, 2, 3” and “Group 2: Counts 4, 5.” Your job—and your attorney’s job—is to verify that the probation officer applied the grouping rules correctly. Did they miss any counts that should of grouped under §3D1.2(b) (same victim)? Did they seperate counts that actually involve the same harm?

Common error: Probation officers sometimes don’t group counts aggresively enough becuase there trying to be “neutral” or becuase they don’t fully understand the case facts. If you defrauded the same bank through 5 different transactions, those should group. If the PSR puts them in seperate groups, object.

Step 2: Check the Offense Level for Each Group

Once counts are grouped, the PSR calculates an offense level for each group based off the guideline that produces the highest offense level within that group. For fraud cases using §2B1.1, this is usually driven by loss amount. For drug cases using §2D1.1, its driven by drug quantity.

Make sure the PSR didn’t double-count. If Counts 1-3 involved $100,000 in fraud and there grouped together, the loss should be $100,000 total, not $100,000 per count. Sounds obvious, but I’ve seen PSRs that mess this up—different than what you’d expect from a federal probation officer, but it happens.

Step 3: Verify the Units Table Calculation (§3D1.4)

This is where it gets tricky. Even if you have multiple groups, you don’t just add the offense levels together. Instead, you use the Units Table in §3D1.4. Here’s how it works:

– Take the group with the highest offense level. That’s your starting point.
– For each additional group, assign “units” based off its offense level compared to the highest group.
– Add up the units, and that determines how many additional levels get added to the highest group’s offense level.

Plain and simple, this is where most calculation errors happen. The probation officer might assign the wrong number of units, or they might forget to cap the increase at certain levels. Your attorney should recalculate this independently and compare it to the PSR. If the numbers don’t match, object.

Step 4: Look for Relevant Conduct Inflation

Long story short, even if grouping looks right, check whether the PSR is importing uncharged or dismissed conduct as “relevant conduct” in ways that inflate the offense level. Does the PSR include conduct from dismissed counts? Does it include conduct from a time period not charged in the indictment? Does it include amounts the goverment can’t prove?

If the plea agreement limits relevant conduct to specific transactions or amounts, make sure the PSR complys with that limit. If it doesn’t, taht’s an objection.

District-by-district, judges have different tolerance for relevant conduct arguments. In the Southern District of New York, judges tend to hone in on PSR errors and take objections seriously. In other districts—lets just say certain Texas districts—judges give the PSR the benefit of the doubt. Knowing your judge’s tendencies matters, comprised of local knowledge your lawyer should have.

Plea Negotiation Tactics—Using Grouping as Leverage

The AUSA offered a plea deal: plead to 4 counts, dismiss 2. Sounds reasonable, right?

But you don’t know if those 4 counts will group or if your being played. Here’s how to negotiate around grouping to actually get a better deal then what’s on the table.

Demand Stipulated Facts That Force Grouping

Truth be told, the most powerful tool in plea negotiations is stipulated facts. If the plea agreement includes a stipulation that “all counts involved the same victim and arose from a common scheme,” that language can FORCE the probation officer and judge to group the counts under §3D1.2(b) or (c).

Here’s how savvy defense attorneys use this: Instead of just dismissing counts, they negotiate for stipulations that make the remaining counts group favorably. For example:

– Stipulate that “all wire fraud counts involved substantially the same harm to the victim”—this triggers §3D1.2(a) grouping.
– Stipulate that “the money laundering count was incidental to the fraud counts”—this triggers §3D1.2(d) grouping.
– Stipulate to a specific loss amount that’s lower then what the goverment initially claimed—this limits offense level inflation.

The goverment might resist these stipulations becuase there smart enough to know what your doing. But if they want the plea badly enough—and they usually do, becuase trial is expensive and risky for them to—they’ll agree. The fact of the matter is, getting favorable stipulations in the plea agreement is worth more then dismissing extra counts that would of grouped anyways.

Negotiate Which Counts to Plead To

Not all counts are created equal for grouping purposes. If your charged with 6 counts and the deal is to plead to 3, which 3 matters. Ideally, you want to plead to counts that will group together, and you want to avoid counts that won’t group or that carry mandatory minimums.

Example: You got charged with drug trafficking (mandatory minimum) plus conspiracy (no mandatory minimum) plus money laundering. If you plead to the drug trafficking count, your locked into the mandatory minimum irregardless of grouping. But if you can negotiate to plead to conspiracy and money laundering only, you avoid the mandatory minimum and those two counts will likely group, giving you a lower guideline range.

Your attorney should be thinking strategically about this. If there not, you need to ask: “Which counts carry mandatory minimums? Which counts will group? Can we plead to different counts to get a better outcome?” These questions seperate competent lawyers from exceptional ones—first come, first serve doesn’t apply when your negotiating your life, so don’t pass mustard on this critical strategic decision just becuase your lawyer seems confident.

When to Fight, When to Fold—Trial vs. Plea With Multiple Counts

Your at the crossroads.

Trial date is set for 8 weeks from now. The plea offer expires in 7 days. You need to decide, and the decision is based off understanding how grouping mathematics changes if you go to trial and loose on some counts versus pleading guilty to all counts now.

Let me be clear: going to trial with multiple counts is extremely risky, irregardless of how strong your defenses seem. Here’s the brutal math that explains why 97% of federal defendants plead guilty.

The Plea Math

If you plead guilty to 6 counts right now, you’ll likely get:

• Grouping benefits (6 counts collapse to 1-2 groups)
• Acceptance of responsibility reduction (3 offense levels off)
• Possibly a 5K motion or safety valve if you cooperate
• A guideline range that’s calculable and predicatable

Let’s say that math works out to 5-7 years. You know what your facing, and you can plan your life accordingly—as much as anyone can plan around federal prison, but you get the idea.

The Trial Math

If you go to trial on those same 6 counts, here’s what happens if you loose:

• No grouping for acquitted counts, but the conduct from acquitted counts still enhances your sentance through relevant conduct
• No acceptance of responsibility (you lose 3 levels)
• No cooperation credit (goverment won’t file a 5K motion if you made them go to trial)
• Possible obstruction of justice enhancement if you testified and the judge thinks you lied (add 2 levels)
• Judges often give harsher sentances post-trial becuase they view you as wasting judicial resources

Going to trial—and I’ve seen this happen—even if you win on 4 counts and only get convicted on 2, you could end up with a higher sentance then if you’d plead guilty to all 6. The acquitted conduct gets imported as relevant conduct, you loose acceptance of responsibility, and the judge is annoyed that you made everyone sit through a 2-week trial.

Suddenly, that 5-7 year plea offer is looking at 10-12 years post-trial. Was the 1% chance of full acquittal worth the upmost risk of doubling your sentance? For most people, its not.

When Trial Makes Sense

I’m not gonna sugarcoat this: there ARE cases where trial makes sense despite these risks. If the goverment’s case is weak and you got a real shot at acquittal on all counts, trial might be worth it. If the plea offer is so bad that you’d rather take your chances, trial might be the right call. If your facing life without parole anyways, you got nothing to loose.

But if your looking at a reasonable plea offer—say, 40-50% of what you’d get post-trial—the math usually favors pleading. The trial penalty in federal court is real, and acquitted conduct enhancements are a huge part of why. Its not fair, but its the system we got. You can complain about vocal chords of injustice at beckon call, or you can make a strategic decision based off reality.

Advanced Strategies Your Lawyer Should Know (But Might Not)

Your starting to wonder if your lawyer really gets this grouping stuff.

He gave you one number last week (8-10 years), a different number this week (6-8 years), and now your not sure if he knows what he’s doing or if the calculations really are that complicated.

Here’s what seperates good federal defense lawyers from great ones when it comes to grouping:

Aggresive “Same Victim” Arguments

Most lawyers take a conservative approach to §3D1.2(b) grouping (same victim, same harm). But case law supports broader definitions of “victim” then most people realize, especially in white-collar cases. A great lawyer will argue that “the banking system” is one victim, or that “program integrity” is one victim in healthcare fraud cases, allowing counts against different banks or different patients to group.

By in large, mediocre lawyers don’t make these arguments becuase there worried about losing credibility with the judge. Great lawyers make the argument, cite the case law, and force the goverment to respond. Even if the judge doesn’t fully buy it, you might get partial grouping that wouldn’t of happened otherwise.

Timing Games with Multiple Indictments

If your facing charges in multiple indictments, your lawyer should be thinking about whether consolidation helps or hurts. Sometimes you WANT consolidation becuase it triggers grouping. Sometimes you want seperate sentencings becuase it avoids stacking. This is cut and dry strategy that requires knowlege of your specific fact pattern and the math of both scenarios.

District-Specific Practices

Judges in the Southern District of New York tend to apply grouping rules more favorably to defendants then judges in, say, the Western District of Texas. If you have venue options, or if there’s a legitimate basis to transfer your case, knowing which districts are defendant-friendly on grouping can inform that strategy. Your laywer should know the local practices and judges’ tendencies.

Expert Witnesses on Guidelines Calculations

In very high-stakes cases (long sentances, complex grouping issues), some defendants hire a sentencing expert—usually a former probation officer or guidelines specialist—to review the PSR and testify about grouping errors. This is expensive, but if the error could mean 5-10 years difference, its worth considering. Most lawyers don’t even mention this option becuase they assume clients can’t afford it, but you should at least know it exists.

If You’re Already Sentenced—Post-Conviction Options

You was sentenced three years ago. You just learned about grouping rules and you think the probation officer got it wrong. Your PSR put counts in seperate groups that should of grouped together, inflating you’re offense level by 4-6 levels.

Is it too late? Can you do anything now?

Maybe. Here’s the options for already-sentenced defendants who think there was a grouping error:

Compassionate Release (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A))

Recent case law in 2024—specifically cases in the 4th and 9th Circuits—has opened the door for compassionate release motions based on “gross sentencing errors” including grouping miscalculations. If your sentance was significantly longer then it should of been due to a clear grouping error, and if you can show “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” you might get releif.

This ain’t a guaranteed win. Most judges are reluctant to second-guess sentances years later. But if the error is egregious—like, counts that obviously should of grouped under any reading of §3D1.2 but didn’t—you got a shot. Anyways, its worth filing the motion becuase the worst they can say is no, and your already in prison so what do you got to loose?

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

If your trial or sentencing attorney failed to object to obvious grouping errors in the PSR, that might constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. To win on this, you gotta show that (1) your attorney’s performance was deficient (they missed something obvious), and (2) there’s a reasonable probability that, but for the error, your sentance would of been different.

Grouping errors can meet this standard if the error is clear and the impact is substantial. For example, if 4 counts obviously should of grouped under §3D1.2(b) but your attorney never objected, and that error added 3-4 offense levels (2-3 years), that could be ineffective assistance. The statue of limitations for §2255 motions is one year from when your conviction becomes final, so timing matters—piece of mind comes from knowing you filed within the window.

Don’t Face This Alone—Get a Lawyer Who Understands Grouping

Right now. Today. Not tomorrow.

You need to talk to a federal defense attorney who actually understands grouping rules and can calculate your real exposure. Not the inflated numbers the prosecutor threw at you. Not the vague “it depends” answer from your current lawyer. You need precision becuase you’re future depends on it.

Ask them these specific questions:

• “Which of my counts will group together under §3D1.2?”
• “What’s the offense level for each group?”
• “How many units do my additional groups add under §3D1.4?”
• “What’s my actual guideline range after grouping?”
• “Do any of my counts carry mandatory minimums that override grouping?”
• “What relevant conduct will the PSR likely include?”
• “Can we stipulate to facts in the plea agreement that force favorable grouping?”
• “What district-specific practices should we know about?”

If your lawyer can’t answer these questions clearly and specifically, you might need a different lawyer. PSR objection deadlines are 14 days. Plea offers expire. Trial dates arrive. Grouping ain’t theoretical—its the math that determines whether you see your kids grow up or dont.

The federal sentencing guidelines are complex, and grouping rules are one of the most misunderstood parts. But understanding them gives you power. Power to negotiate better plea deals. Power to spot errors in your PSR. Power to make informed decisions about trial versus plea. Power to advocate for yourself when it matters most.

Because time’s running out.