Methamphetamine Sentencing Guidelines Amendment

Federal drug charges are extremely serious. They often carry steep mandatory minimum sentences that can lead to decades in prison. Of thousands of drug crimes prosecuted by the U.S. Government just from October 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, almost half were for methamphetamine. On top of that, about 25 percent of individuals within the Bureau of Prisons are serving a sentence for methamphetamine trafficking offenses. Federal drug lawyers are vital to protecting the rights of the accused in these cases.

Why is methamphetamine one of the most common drug crimes prosecuted by the federal government? And why is there a disproportional amount of people in federal prison for methamphetamine offenses? The reason behind these startling numbers stems from the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Act of 1998, both a part of the government’s decades-long “War on Drugs.”

Over recent years there have been a growing number of federal judges, advocates, and organizations have expressed disagreement with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ disproportionate treatment of methamphetamine offenses. This has prompted the United States Sentencing Commission to propose an amendment to the 2026 Sentencing Guidelines that would reduce sentences for methamphetamine.

Call the Denver Federal Drug Lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys at (303) 948-1489. Or email our office directly at [email protected] to receive a free and confidential consultation.

What Makes Evergreen Attorneys Different?

1. We only handle serious federal cases.
2. We practice in federal courts all across the country. 

There are dozens if not hundreds of lawyers you can find on the internet who claim to be experienced federal criminal defense lawyers. Almost all of these Denver wire fraud lawyers claim to be “experts” or “fighters” who will give you “aggressive representation” or something similar.

Here are some of the things that we think makes Evergreen Attorneys different from the pack:

• We only practice federal criminal defense. No family law clients, no medical malpractice, no transactional lawyers. All federal work. Every day.
• We only employ experienced partner-level attorneys. No fresh-faced associates right out of law school.
• We are a boutique federal white collar law firm. Every decision is tailored towards providing client-first exceptional criminal defense.
• Evergreen Attorneys handles cases nationwide. We are not interested in being golfing buddies with the prosecutor.

Why so Many Methamphetamine Cases?

Methamphetamine makes up almost half of all the federal drug prosecutions in the United States. Why is methamphetamine so prevalent in federal prosecutions, and why is there a disproportionate amount of people incarcerated for methamphetamine offenses? The answer dates back to the 1980s and 1990s’ anti-drug legislation.

Federal drug lawyers know this story inside and out. But it’s worth repeating here again to keep the history front of mind for our readers.

The statutory penalties for methamphetamine offenses are found at 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 960. Most drug’s statutory penalties are based solely on drug quantity, but methamphetamine punishes defendants based on quantity and purity of the substance. The statutes contain quantity threshold triggers for five- and ten-year mandatory minimums for methamphetamine (actual) (“pure” methamphetamine) and methamphetamine (mixture) (“a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine”). 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), (B)(viii). Two different 10:1 ratios set the mandatory minimum penalties for methamphetamine trafficking offenses. Additionally, the quantity of methamphetamine mixture triggering each mandatory minimum is set at ten times the quantity of methamphetamine (actual) triggering the same statutory minimum penalties.

These penalties come from legislation in 1988 and 1998 meant to address methamphetamine trafficking offenses. The Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement of 1998 halved the quantities of methamphetamine set forth in the 1988 Act to the quantity threshold for methamphetamine  (actual) that matched those in place at the time for crack cocaine. Since then, the statutory penalties for crack cocaine have changed while meth has remained the same.

On top of the severely harsh statutory penalties for methamphetamine offenses, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which all federal courts use as a baseline in determining an appropriate sentence, is structured differently than other drug offenses. All drug offenses used Section 2D1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual to determine the applicable Guidelines range for sentencing.

Unlike most other drugs, § 2D1.1 applies different base offense levels for offenses involving methamphetamine based on the purity of the substance. 2D1.1 contains three different entries for meth: (1) “Methamphetamine,” which refers to the entire weight of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of meth; (2) “Methamphetamine (actual),” which is used to refer to the weight of the methamphetamine itself contained in a mixture or substance; and (3) “Ice,” which is defined as “a mixture or substance containing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of at least 80% purity.” The Drug Quantity Table sets base offense levels for methamphetamine mixture and methamphetamine (actual) that reflects the same 10:1 ratio of the statutory provisions.

These statutory penalties and Guidelines enhancements are not much different than the cocaine vs. crack cocaine disparity we have seen over the past few decades. What makes methamphetamine much worse, however, is the Guidelines inclusion of a third category of methamphetamine purity: ice. Although ice is included in the Guidelines, it appears nowhere in the statutes setting penalties for methamphetamine offenses. Ice was added to the Guidelines in response to the Crime Control Act of 1990, which directed the Sentencing Commission to amend the Guidelines “for offenses involving smokable crystal methamphetamine . . . so that convictions for [such offenses] will be assigned an offense level … two levels above that which would have been assigned to the same offense involving other forms of methamphetamine.” Pub. L. No. 101–67, § 2701 (1990).

The Act did not define “smokable crystal methamphetamine,” and the Sentencing Commission struggled to determine its meaning. The Commission ultimately responded to the Act by adding “Ice” to the Drug Quantity Table, even though the Act made no mention of “ice.”

To put it bluntly (pardon the pun), you need a federal drug lawyer to help make sense of this.

Why is the Sentencing Commission is Proposing Amending the Methamphetamine Guidelines?

There have been changes to the trends in methamphetamine trafficking over the last couple of decades. When Congress established different statutory penalties for methamphetamine (actual) and a mixture containing methamphetamine in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the average purity of the meth being trafficked in the United States was rarely over 50 percent. At the time, individuals who trafficked high-purity methamphetamine were viewed as more sophisticated and higher in the drug distribution chain.

However, over recent years the purity of methamphetamine trafficked in the United States has substantially increased. Today, it is rare to find methamphetamine that test lower than 90 percent pure. This is a problem the Denver federal drug lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys know all too well.

The Sentencing Commission has since found that the average purity of methamphetamine today does not correspond to the function of the individual drug trafficker. Additionally, the Commission has found that the methamphetamine trafficking caseload has evolved over the past 20+ years. Since 2002, the number of offenses involving methamphetamine mixture has remained relatively steady, but the number of cases involving methamphetamine (actual) or ice has risen 300 percent.

What are the 2026 Proposed Amendments?

There are quite a few proposed amendments on the table for the 2026 Guidelines amendment cycle. You can read more information about the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and proposed amendments from one of our previous posts here.

What is the 2026 Methamphetamine Amendment?

The Sentencing Commission is considering two options to update the Guidelines in 2026. Both options would change the current methamphetamine sentencing practices.

• Option 1

This proposed amendment would eliminate the distinction in the guidelines between different types of methamphetamine offenses. The Commission is considering three options on where to set the quantity thresholds: (1) the current quantity thresholds for mixture, (2) the current quantity thresholds for actual, or (3) the current quantity thresholds for actual, or quantity thresholds in the middle of the two (such as fentanyl or cocaine base).

• Option 2

This proposed amendment would maintain different quantity thresholds for methamphetamine offenses but use conduct-based factors to determine which threshold applies each case. Depending on the factors in the case, individuals would be sentenced at the current quantity thresholds for actual, or at a level in the middle of the two. The Commission is considering which and how many conduct-based factors must be met.

Will the 2026 Amendment be Retroactive?

We think it is great that the Sentencing Commission is considering changing the current Sentencing Guidelines to address the disparities in the methamphetamine guidelines. As it stands, if the proposed amendments pass then they will only apply to individuals sentenced after November 1, 2026.

However, the Sentencing Commission has the authority to make guideline amendments apply retroactively. If the Commission makes the methamphetamine amendment retroactive, that means individuals currently serving a sentence for methamphetamine offenses can request their sentence be lowered.

Retroactive amendments are not applied automatically. A defendant must file a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to the sentencing court showing (1) if they were sentenced under the current amendment, their guideline range would have been lower; and (2) the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a reduction in sentence.

We still do not yet know what the final version of the Sentencing Commission’s proposed amendment will be. We don’t know which option they will decide on and what threshold quantity levels they will use. Nonetheless, this amendment has the potential to affect thousands of federal defendants if it is applied retroactively.

The experienced federal drug lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys can help walk you through your options and explain what this might mean for your case.

How You Can Help

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is currently taking comments from the public on its proposed guidelines for 2026. You can make your voice heard by submitted a comment and requesting the Commission make the methamphetamine amendment retroactive so that individuals currently serving a sentence can benefit.

There are two ways to submit your comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission:

(1) Electronic Submissions of Comments – You can submit your comments to the Sentencing Commission electronically by clicking this link and following the online instructions: Public Comment Submission Portal.

(2) Submission by Mail: Alternatively, you can mail your comments to the Sentencing Commission at the following address:

United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Suite 2-500

Washington, DC 20002-8002

Attention: Public Affairs – Proposed Amendments

Contact the Denver Federal Drug Lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys for a confidential consultation.

If you’re facing federal drug charges or need help navigating a legal battle, don’t wait to seek legal assistance. Contact Evergreen Attorneys today for a confidential consultation. We’re here to help you understand your options and build a strong defense. You can call us at 303-948-1489 or email us at [email protected] to get in touch with an experienced federal lawyer at Evergreen Attorneys today.