Threatening or Harassing Communications Sentence Calculator

Starting level and typical ranges

These ranges use the starting level alone, before any of the facts listed below, for someone with no criminal record unless the column says otherwise. Most real cases add levels.

Starting point	Level	Trial	Guilty plea	Plea + zero-point	Category IV, plea
A threat, hoax, false lien, or any other case	12	10–16 months	6–12 months	n/a	15–21 months
Harassing phone calls or messages under 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(C), (D) or (E), with no threat to hurt a person or property	6	0–6 months	0–6 months	n/a	2–8 months

The 2-level zero-point reduction is generally not available for this kind of offense, because it usually involves violence, a credible threat or a weapon (§4C1.1(a)(3), (a)(7)).

What changes the sentence

Each of these facts moves the offense level under §2A6.1. Adjustments that apply to every offense, such as role in the offense, obstruction, a guilty plea and criminal history, come after these.

Fact	Effect	Rule
Did the person do anything showing an intent to carry out the threat: Yes	+6	§2A6.1(b)(1)
Were there more than two threats, or more than two false liens: More than two threats	+2	§2A6.1(b)(2)
Were there more than two threats, or more than two false liens: Convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1521, with more than two false liens or encumbrances	+2	§2A6.1(b)(2)
Did the offense violate a court protection order: Yes	+2	§2A6.1(b)(3)
Substantial disruption of public, government or business functions or services	+4	§2A6.1(b)(4)
Substantial spending to clean up, decontaminate or otherwise respond	+4	§2A6.1(b)(4)
Was it a public threat, in a case with a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §115, that risked inciting others: Yes	+2	§2A6.1(b)(5)
Was it a single instance showing little or no deliberation: Yes, and none of the increases above applies	−4	§2A6.1(b)(6)

Important details

If the person showed an intent to carry out a threat to use a weapon of mass destruction, §2M6.1 applies if it gives a higher level (§2A6.1(c)(1)).
For a false lien conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1521, the official victim adjustment (§3A1.2) also applies (§2A6.1, note 2).
Several counts of threatening the same victim are grouped together. Counts involving different victims are not (§2A6.1, note 3).
The calculator does not apply mandatory minimum sentences set by statute for this offense. If the statute of conviction requires one and it is higher than the range shown, the minimum controls; check the statute or ask a lawyer.
Calculator limits: §2A6.1(b)(6): the calculator relies on the user to pick the 4-level reduction only when no increase under (b)(1) to (b)(5) applies. It does not enforce this.

Frequently asked questions

What is the base offense level for threatening or harassing communications?

The guideline for threatening or harassing communications is §2A6.1 of the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Before any adjustments, its starting level depends on the facts: from level 6 to level 12. The table on this page lists each starting point.

What is the guideline range for threatening or harassing communications with no criminal history points and a guilty plea?

Using the first starting point in the table on this page (level 12) alone, a person with no criminal history points who pleads guilty scores 6–12 months (6 months to 1 year). The facts listed under “What changes the sentence” can add levels, and the judge can sentence outside the range.

Is probation possible for threatening or harassing communications?

Possibly, with conditions. At the first starting point in the table with a guilty plea the range is in Zone B, which allows probation with home detention, community confinement or intermittent confinement, unless the offense is a Class A or B felony or the statute rules probation out (§5B1.1(b)).

Is the calculator accurate for threatening or harassing communications?

It follows §2A6.1 of the Guidelines Manual effective November 1, 2025. It passed 5 review rounds, each comparing every number, rule and label with the manual text, and its last round found nothing to correct. Those reviews were done with AI tools, not by lawyers, and it has not yet been reviewed by an attorney, so mistakes are possible. The guidelines are advisory, and a lawyer who knows the case can tell you what actually applies.