Amendment 838 is effective November 1, 2026
The United States Sentencing Commission's 2026 Guidelines Manual is effective today. Amendment 838 adjusts monetary tables and values throughout the Guidelines to account for inflation since the Commission's last broad adjustment in 2015.
The change is immediately relevant to federal cases approaching sentencing, resentencing, or another proceeding in which the court must identify the applicable Guidelines Manual. It is not a general authorization to revisit every sentence previously calculated under an older monetary table.
The §2B1.1 fraud loss table now starts at $9,000 instead of $6,500
Under the amended §2B1.1(b)(1) table, a loss of $9,000 or less receives no loss increase, and a loss above $9,000 begins the two-level increase. The previous table began that increase above $6,500.
Other breakpoints also moved. The four-level threshold increased from more than $15,000 to more than $20,000; the six-level threshold moved from more than $40,000 to more than $55,000; and the eight-level threshold moved from more than $95,000 to more than $150,000. The table continues upward through a 30-level increase for loss above $750 million, replacing the prior $550 million breakpoint.
The amendment reaches more than ordinary fraud cases
Amendment 838 also adjusts monetary tables or values governing burglary, robbery, antitrust offenses, tax offenses, individual fines, organizational base fines, insider trading, cultural-heritage offenses, bribery, counterfeiting, copyright and trademark offenses, and other provisions identified in the amendment.
The effect in a particular case therefore cannot be determined from the §2B1.1 table alone. Counsel and the court must identify every monetary provision used in the calculation and compare the complete applicable manual.
A higher threshold does not resolve the disputed loss amount
Amendment 838 changes the table into which the court places the loss figure. It does not by itself decide what transactions count, whether the government proved the amount, whether credits against loss apply, or which other specific offense characteristics and adjustments are supported by the record.
Presentence-report objections should therefore separate two questions: the correct loss calculation and the offense-level increase produced by the applicable table. A changed breakpoint matters only after the underlying amount and the correct manual are established.
The sentencing date usually selects the manual—but ex post facto limits still apply
Section 1B1.11 generally directs a court to use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date of sentencing. If the current manual would create an ex post facto problem by increasing the applicable range for conduct completed earlier, the court uses the manual in effect when the offense of conviction was committed.
The manual must ordinarily be applied as an integrated whole. A party cannot simply select the new loss table while keeping more favorable provisions from another edition. Multiple-count and continuing-offense cases require careful attention to the last date of the offense of conviction and the rules in §1B1.11.
Amendment 838 was not made retroactive under §1B1.10
Section 3582(c)(2) permits a sentence reduction only when the Commission has lowered the applicable guideline range and the reduction is consistent with §1B1.10. That policy statement limits relief to amendments listed in §1B1.10(d). Amendment 838 is not on that covered-amendments list.
The Commission also stated that it did not solicit public comment or hold a hearing on retroactivity for the amendments submitted on April 30, 2026. Although three Commissioners may have favored retroactivity for the inflation amendment, that was not enough to meet the required voting threshold. The result is prospective application, not a new §3582(c)(2) reopening mechanism for final sentences.
Pending cases and final cases require different procedural questions
For a case awaiting its original sentencing, the immediate question is which complete manual applies and how the revised monetary provisions affect the calculation. On remand, the mandate, the scope of resentencing, the governing circuit's remand rules, and §1B1.11 may determine whether the new manual can be considered.
For a final sentence, simply showing that Amendment 838 would produce a lower calculation today is not enough. A motion must identify an independent source of authority to modify the judgment, and §3582(c)(2) does not provide that authority for an amendment the Commission did not designate as retroactive.
A useful review starts with the dates, the complete calculation, and the procedural posture
A responsible assessment should collect the offense dates, indictment and count structure, plea or verdict, presentence report, written objections, sentencing transcript, statement of reasons, judgment, guideline worksheets, prior manual used, appeal history, and any remand order. The loss amount should then be tested against both the applicable old table and the 2026 table without assuming the newer manual controls.
This article provides general educational information, not legal advice, an eligibility decision, or a prediction of relief. Amendment 838 can materially change a current monetary guideline calculation, but the applicable manual, loss evidence, ex post facto analysis, procedural vehicle, and finality rules require individualized review.