We asked many prosecutors if they were troubled by the discrepancy between a plea offer of, say, 15 years and a post-trial sentence of 30 years or life without parole. They were not. They see it as part and parcel of plea bargaining. He was fully informed and rolled the dice. Otherwise no one would ever plead guilty. Asked if the higher sentence post-conviction would satisfy requirements of proportionality and being no greater than necessary to serve the purposes of punishment, prosecutors essentially dodged the question.
They fell back on the notion that defendants could have taken a plea and thereby avoided the higher sentence. Every time a prosecutor makes good on a threat to seek higher sentences for a defendant who will not plead has a chilling effect in other cases.
This is one of the reasons prosecutors carry out their threats. They want their threats to be effective at securing pleas in the current and future cases.
To do so, they cannot get a reputation for bluffing or walking away from the possibility of hitting defendants who will not plead with higher sentences. Prosecutors may realize making good on their threat will lead to an excessive and unfair sentence, but maintaining their credibility often appears to take priority.
The prosecutor told the judge,. In this section we present statistics that quantify the significantly longer sentences drug defendants receive if they go to trial rather than plead guilty. We think they nonetheless illuminate the sentencing risk defendants face if they refuse to plead. As seen in Table 3, the mean sentence for all drug trafficking offenses in which conviction was obtained by plea was 5 years, 4 months, and the mean sentence for cases in which conviction was obtained at trial was 16 years, i.
If we look at average sentences for drug offenders by type of drug involved in the offense, the sentence received after trial is also about three times longer than the sentence after pleading. Defendants who pled guilty were more likely to receive sentences below the guideline range than those who went to trial: 56 percent of those who pled received lower than guideline range sentences compared to 33 percent of those convicted after trial.
Pleading also greatly reduces the sentences for defendants convicted of offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences. As shown in Figure 9, for federal drug offenders convicted of drug offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties, the average sentence of those who pled guilty was 6 years, 10 months compared to 17 years, 11 months for defendants convicted after trial—a difference of 11 years. The most commonly imposed mandatory minimum penalties for drug trafficking offenses are those with a minimum of 5 years 6, individuals, or 28 percent of convicted drug offenders and 10 years 7, individuals, or For those convicted by plea of offenses carrying the 5-year minimum, their average sentence was 5 years, 3 months compared to 9 years, 3 months for those convicted after trial.
For who pled and faced a minimum of ten years, their average sentence was 7 years, 11 months; for those who were convicted after trial, the average sentence was 18 years, 3 months. Critical to the lower sentences defendants convicted of offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties receive if they plead instead of going to trial, is the fact that defendants who plead are more likely to receive relief from mandatory sentences.
As shown in Table 4, only 4. This no doubt helps explain why, in Figure 9, the average sentence of defendants who pled guilty to offenses carrying mandatory minimums was 11 years lower than the sentence of those who went to trial. It also helps explain why in Figure 10, among defendants facing mandatory minimum penalties of 10 years or more, the average sentence for those who pled was below that minimum. We realize the differences in average sentences to some unknown extent may reflect salient differences among the individual cases that we cannot identify or quantify, e.
Such factors could affect the sentence wholly apart from whether the defendants pled or went to trial. To more carefully assess the trial penalty, we created a sample of drug offender cases that were similar in important respects except for the fact that some of the defendants pled guilty while others went to trial. The sample consists of all federal drug defendants in FY who were subject to drug mandatory minimum penalties, who had little or no criminal history they fall in criminal history category I , who did not have a weapon involved in their offense, and who all had base offense level of 32 under the guidelines based on the quantity of the drug involved.
In this group, as shown in Figure 11, defendants who went to trial received average sentence of 9 years, 10 months, compared to the average sentence of 4 years, 11 months for those who pled. Among defendants matched in the most relevant sentencing factors, those who went to trial received sentences just about twice as long as those who pled.
We also looked at this sample to determine the likelihood of receiving relief from the mandatory minimums. Among those who pled, 87 percent received some form of relief; among those who went to trial, only 22 percent received relief. Defendants who pled and received some form of relief had average sentences considerably lower than those who went to trial, with the length varying by kind of relief received. When comparing sentences among all drug offenders who pled guilty or went to trial, we know the sentences to some unknown— and unknowable—extent may reflect legitimate and important differences among the defendants in the two groups, e.
But when we look at defendants receiving increased sentencing penalties based on prior convictions or the presence of guns in their offense, data is available to determine who was eligible for such penalties as well as who had the penalties applied. We can determine the different rates at which the penalties were applied according to whether defendants pled or went to trial. By doing so, we can more precisely delineate the trial penalty in these cases. As noted, defendants who are eligible for a sentencing enhancement because of prior convictions are 8.
This differential application already testifies to a trial penalty. Prosecutors are willing to reduce the number of prior convictions for defendants who plead, and this may be reflected in their shorter sentences. Avoiding the enhancement had a significant sentencing impact—their sentences were on average five years shorter than the sentences of defendants who also pled but had the enhancement applied.
It is also notable that among the defendants who were eligible for the enhancement but it was not applied, the average sentence of those who went to trial was nine years longer than the sentence of those who pled. The chance to receive a substantial assistance motion depends on the willingness of the defendant to plead, and thus the lack of such an opportunity becomes part of the trial penalty for those who go to trial.
The federal sentencing regime for drug offenders has transferred significant sentencing power from an independent federal judiciary with no personal stake in the outcome of a case, to prosecutors, representatives of the executive branch with personal, as well as institutional, interests in securing convictions. Judges have more sentencing discretion now than they did under the regime of mandatory sentencing guidelines. But their hands are still tied by mandatory minimum sentencing legislation and the guidelines continue to constrain many of their sentencing decisions.
The mandatory sentences are the most troubling. Because of them, judges lack the discretion to countermand prosecutorial charging decisions that yield disproportionately long or cruelly excessive sentences. Prosecutors can charge or threaten to charge offenses carrying high sentences to force defendants to plead and they can use them to punish defendants who choose to go to trial.
Prosecutors have many functions, but sentencing is not one of them. Nor should it be. However responsible and conscientious prosecutors are in the exercise of their discretion, they represent the executive branch. Their principal role in the criminal justice system is to serve the public by investigating and prosecuting cases against defendants whom they believe guilty of crime.
In contrast, judges—who have life tenure—have the independence to serve only the law. Most people would agree that a defendant presented with the choice of pleading to a year sentence or receiving a life sentence if convicted after trial is being coerced.
In the infamous case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes , the Supreme Court gave a green light to prosecutors to secure pleas through inducements or threats—including by threats of far greater punishment for exercising the right to trial. The prosecutor offered to recommend a sentence of five years if Hayes agreed to plead guilty. Hayes refused to plead, the prosecutor indicted and convicted him as a habitual offender, and Hayes was sentenced to life in prison. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, codifies the right to trial and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt.
In Germany, for example, the Federal Constitutional Court has emphasized that a defendant must not be pressed to confess through threats of a higher sentence.
Where the differential between a bargained for sentence and a sentence proportionate to the offense is too great, appellate courts may step in. In July , Hall began a relationship with Johnnie Martin, a man with a history of abusing women, which he continued in his relationship with Hall.
He was also the leader of a large-scale drug operation: his organization obtained crack, powder cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana from suppliers in Atlanta, Georgia and redistributed them in the Knoxville, Tennessee area where Martin was based.
In May of , law enforcement agents executed search warrants for each of the stash houses. Hall was arrested at one of the houses in which drugs and paraphernalia were found along with a gun under a couch cushion.
In May , a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Hall, Martin, and 10 others. The original indictment charged Hall with a single count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack. It did not include charges for marijuana, any other drugs, or possession of the firearms. In June , the prosecution informed the defendants that if any of them wished to enter a plea agreement, they needed to do so before a superseding indictment with additional charges was filed.
Plea negotiations apparently continued between Hall and the government, but ultimately did not bear fruit. In June , Hall was tried and convicted of all five counts set forth in the superseding indictment. She was sentenced to a total of months She was also sentenced to 60 months on the marijuana charge and a sentence of months on the money laundering charge, both of which ran concurrently with the above.
But the court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that Hall knew of the existence and purpose of the firearms to further the drug business. On appeal, Hall unsuccessfully argued that the additional charges in the superseding indictment were improperly added in retaliation for her refusal to enter into a plea agreement.
The appellate court also rejected her arguments that the sentence she received was unconstitutionally cruel.
In theory, the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits as cruel and unusual punishment sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. Drug defendants facing sentences of decades and even life in prison for the nonviolent distribution of drugs have argued such sentences are unconstitutionally disproportionate.
Their arguments fall on deaf ears. In Harmelin v. Michigan, the Supreme Court upheld a life without parole sentence for a year-old first-offender convicted of transporting a pound of cocaine. Even when federal courts consider long drug sentences to be excessively severe, they do not rule them unconstitutional. For example, a federal appeals court assessed the constitutionality of the year sentence Mary Beth Looney, a first time offender, received for selling methamphetamine from her house and possessing guns in the house.
Under international human rights standards, criminal sanctions should be proportionate to the crime and the culpability of the particular offender, and should be no greater than necessary to meet the purposes of punishment—retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
In either case, they are inconsistent with respect for human dignity. Sentences such as that imposed on Sandra Avery—life without parole for minor drug dealing and having a few prior minor drug convictions— cannot pass human rights muster. Life without parole sentences may be appropriate in certain cases of horrific and deliberate unlawful violence. But sentencing someone to die in prison for nonviolent drug dealing cannot be justified. She is living the rest of her life behind bars as punishment for refusing to accept a year plea offer and insisting on her right to trial.
We believe Attorney General Eric Holder should make just and proportionate sentences a goal prosecutors keep forefront in their charging and plea bargaining decisions. But Congress must also take steps to end the trial penalty. Legislative reform should restore judicial discretion over sentencing—either by eliminating mandatory minimums or by permitting judges to go below them in individual cases in the interests of justice. Such legislative reform would prevent prosecutors from being able to bludgeon defendants into pleading guilty with the threat of exorbitant mandatory sentences should they go to trial.
Judges would also be able to provide relief to defendants who pled to disproportionately long sentences in order to avoid the risk of even longer if convicted after trial.
We recognize it is likely that were the trial penalty significantly reduced, more defendants might decide to take their chances at trial and to insist the government prove its case. The federal criminal justice system would adapt. The government might provide the resources to increase the number of prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, courtrooms, and court staff. Federal prosecutors might become more selective in the cases they prosecute and the charges they pursue.
The federal government might decide to put more resources into non-penal strategies to reduce drug consumption and weaken drug markets—e. We cannot predict all the possible consequences.
But we can safely predict that taking away from federal prosecutors the ability to threaten drug defendants with the trial penalty will ensure fairer charges and sentences. Source: Population data compiled from US Census. Human Rights Watch dedicates this report to Peter B. Lewis, a longtime supporter of our work and a steadfast friend who passed away on November 23, Brian Root, the quantitative analyst at Human Rights Watch, helped analyze and develop graphic representations of the sentencing data presented in the report.
Paul Hofer, adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins and former special project director at the United States Sentencing Commission, was a consultant to Human Rights Watch for this report. He provided invaluable assistance regarding federal sentencing practices and policies, helped edit this report, and also developed statistics on the sentencing differential in drug convictions secured by plea versus trial.
Samantha Reiser, US Program associate, provided research and production assistance. Layout and production were coordinated by Samantha Reiser. Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager, provided production assistance. We are also grateful for the encouragement and assistance provided by Norman Reimer and members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Human Rights Watch also wishes to acknowledge our debt to the willingness of private law firms to provide pro bono assistance for this and many other projects. This report draws extensively from the information, insights, and perspectives provided by numerous legal practitioners we interviewed—former and current federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Many did not want to be cited by name, but whether named or not, our gratitude to each one is immense.
They steered us to cases, provided candid, unvarnished descriptions of their work, argued ideas and interpretations with us, and sought to help us understand their legal practice as they lived it. Human Rights Watch is, of course, solely responsible for the conclusions we have drawn from these interviews and other research. We are also grateful to the federal prisoners who responded to our queries about their cases.
Their shock at receiving long or even life sentences for nonviolent drug crimes after they refused to plead guilty still reverberates with and inspires us. Kupa, U. We have no way of knowing how many others were originally charged with offenses carrying mandatory sentences but plea bargains led to charges that did not carry mandatory sentences. We believe state criminal prosecutions for drugs and other offenses may also be marred by excessive trial penalties. Young, U. See Letter from Lanny A.
Breuer, assistant attorney general, and Jonathan J. Wroblewski, director, Office of Policy and Legislation, to Hon. Patti B. Saris, chair, U. This is an increase from when 48 percent of federal prisoners were serving time for drug offenses. Ann Carson and William J. Leitch , U. Y Fifty-three percent of federal drug defendants in were in criminal history category I, which means they had no more than one criminal history point.
Criminal history points are based on state or federal sentences. The average sentence length has decreased from 82 months in , primarily as a consequence of the Fair Sentencing Act which reduced sentences for crack offenses. The length of prison sentences varied by type of drugs: from an average of 97 months for crack offenders to 36 months for marijuana. State sentences tend to be less severe than federal.
Drug law enforcement in the United States is carried out by federal, state, and local agencies. Local agents are responsible for most drug arrests, but local prosecutors often let federal prosecutors handle larger drug conspiracies, violent gangs, or cases in which they want to ensure the harsher federal sentences are imposed on particular defendants.
Agents with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration DEA primarily investigate major narcotics violators, enforce regulations governing the manufacture and dispensing of controlled substances, and perform various other functions to prevent and control drug trafficking.
In , DEA agents made 30, arrests. The FBI employed 16, full-time personnel with arrest and firearm authority. These agents investigate more than types of federal crimes.
Brian A. In fiscal year , out of a total of 26, federal drug cases, 24,, or 93 percent, involved drug trafficking; the remainder were cases for simple possession and use of a communications facility to facilitate a drug offense. We did not have data that would enable us to examine district-level variations in the proportion of defendants convicted of more serious trafficking offenses.
If such variations existed, they might contribute to district differences in average sentence lengths. Based on our research, however, we do not believe there are significant variations in offense seriousness between the districts such as might account for the differences in average sentence lengths.
The factors courts are to consider in sentencing are set forth in 18 U. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of established the basic framework of mandatory minimum penalties still applicable to federal drug trafficking offenses. In , the average sentence length reached its highest, See Paul J. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—. A to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;.
B to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;. C to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and.
D to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;. A the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines—.
Martin, Jr. See 21 U. Conspiracies to commit these offenses carry the same sentences as the substantive offense 21 U. Controlled substances, hereinafter referred to as drugs, include powder cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin, among others. In this report we use the term drug offender to refer to a person engaging in the activities prohibited by Sections and or who conspires to do so.
The new legislation was enacted with little debate or preparatory deliberation. Drug quantities triggering the mandatory minimum sentences were based on anecdotal evidence, and did not reflect research, statistical data, or input from expert agencies. See Testimony of Eric E. See, e. Bucerius and Michael Tonry, eds. Under the notorious federal law governing powder and crack sentences, federal defendants with five grams of crack cocaine received the same mandatory minimum five-year sentence as defendants with grams of powder cocaine.
As the United States Sentencing Commission has amply documented, there is no scientific evidence or empirical research to support subjecting crack offenders to higher sentences than powder. The Fair Sentencing Act of FSA reduced the statutory penalties for crack offenses by increasing the quantity threshold required to trigger a mandatory sentence. The ten-year threshold was increased from 50 to grams; the amount to trigger a five-year minimum sentence was increased from 5 to 28 grams.
Congress thus reduced from to the disparity between the quantities of crack and powder cocaine that triggered mandatory sentences. In Dorsey v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled that the FSA applies to defendants convicted of crack offenses before the enactment of the FSA but sentenced after it took effect.
Dorsey v. United States , S. The sentencing guidelines for crack offenses, which were reduced after enactment of the FSA to incorporate the ratio, are retroactive.
Defendants sentenced under the old guidelines may be eligible for a reduction, but only to the extent their sentences were based on a sentencing range. They are not eligible for reductions below the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for their offenses. Politics and public concern have also driven the extremely high sentences for methamphetamine offenses. While it takes one kilogram of heroin to trigger a ten-year mandatory sentence, it only takes 50 grams of pure methamphetamine to trigger the same sentence.
If prosecutors decline to charge the amount of drug necessary to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking then the mandatory will not apply and convicted defendants can receive sentences ranging from zero to forty years of prison. If it is their first conviction, the minimum term is 10 years…. Our proposal would also provide mandatory minimum penalties for the middle-level dealers as well…. Law enforcement agents or confidential informants working for the government may make multiple buys from a drug seller until he has sold a total quantity that triggers a higher mandatory minimum.
They may also aggressively solicit offenders to influence the amount they sell. Human Rights Watch interview with A. Kramer, federal public defender in the District of Columbia, Washington, D.
Dossie , F. The proportion of all federal drug offenders subject to a mandatory minimum penalty at sentencing— e. See discussion of safety valve exemptions from mandatory minimum sentences in Section IV, below. The government did not have to prove such links, offer them to judicial scrutiny or afford Dossie the opportunity to contest them.
United States v. See also Judge Jack B. Bannister , F. Alexander, No. Payton, F. Carrozza, 4 F. Correy , F. By the time of the superseding indictment, Bowens was one of only seven named defendants. The bosses received month sentences. Harsh, disproportionate mandatory sentences impose grave costs not only on the punished but on the moral credibility upon which our system of criminal justice depends….
Such laws are overly blunt instruments, bringing undue focus upon factors such as drug quantities to the exclusion of other important considerations, including role in the offense, use of guns and violence, criminal history, risk of recidivism, and many personal characteristics of an individual defendant. Conrad, Jr. Sentencing decisions are always difficult, but the required application of mandatory minimums in cases where they are not warranted is repugnant.
Unproven facts could not be asserted and unreasonable demands could not be made because defendants had recourse to the full panoply of protections afforded at trial. Under a mandatory sentencing regime, defendants often face overbearing pressure to plead guilty and waive important rights designed to ensure reliable results.
We have not explored the high rates of plea bargaining in non-drug cases in this report. Incapacitating a low-level drug seller prevents little, if any, drug selling; the crime is simply committed by someone else. See also discussion of literature on deterrence in letter from Jon M. Sands, federal public defender, to Honorable Richard H. Regarding mandatory minimums and impact on crime see also Barbara S.
The threat of a mandatory minimum penalty gives law enforcement leverage over defendants who may be encouraged to cooperate in exchange for lesser charges or substantial-assistance benefits. Diaz , No. Supporters of sentencing guidelines thought they would eliminate unchecked and unguided judicial sentencing discretion and would, as a result, lead to more uniformity, truthfulness, and proportionality in sentencing.
For a comprehensive analysis of the development and operation of the federal sentencing guidelines and their impact on federal criminal justice see Kate Stith and Jose A. Professor Kate Stith recently summarized some of the ongoing problems with the guidelines. Congress further directed the Sentencing Commission to study the effectiveness of guidelines in meeting the purposes of sentencing and to revise them as necessary based on its research. The Sentencing Commission was expected to draw on empirical data, national experience and the expertise of its staff to develop coherent, evidence-based national sentencing policies.
There are 43 offense levels of increasing severity in the Sentencing Table. For drugs, the offense level is tied to the quantity of drugs involved in the offense start at offense level 6 and continues through offense level Offense level 26 applies to drug quantities that trigger the five-year mandatory minimum and level 32 applies for quantities triggering the ten-year mandatory minimum. The quantities of drugs for other offense levels are arrayed upwards and downwards as set forth in the Drug Quantity Table.
Gall v. United States, U. Many guideline critics have faulted the Sentencing Commission for relying too heavily on drug quantity and creating drug sentencing ranges that are far too severe. First time low-level offenders may also qualify for the safety valve see discussion below which will give them a two-level reduction. But these possible decreases in guideline levels do not fully mitigate the harshness of the guidelines keyed to drug quantity.
Paul J. Ingram , F. Human Rights Watch correspondence with Paul J. Hofer, October 23, Booker , U. Going beyond Booker , in two subsequent decisions, Gall v. United States , U. Rita v. Drug quantity under the Guidelines treats as similar the drug dealers who stood to gain a substantial profit … and the deliveryman … who receive little more than piecework wages.
Cabrera , F. See also, Eric L. Fast track programs permit federal prosecutors to secure plea agreements expeditiously in criminal immigration cases that give the defendants significant sentence reductions. See James M. Among individual districts, the percent of within-guidelines sentences ranged from 6.
See Appendix which includes sentencing information only for federal drug traffickers. Judges rarely give sentences to convicted drug defendants that are higher than the guidelines range. In , they gave higher than guidelines sentences in 0. The continuing predominance of guidelines sentences in drug cases to some extent reflects judicial familiarity and comfort with them. Many federal judges began their tenure while the guidelines were mandatory. Indeed, most federal judges were appointed after the guidelines became effective.
Cavera, F. Judges may also sentence within the guidelines either because they do not realize the Sentencing Commission did not develop the guidelines based on its own research or because they believe the guidelines reflect the policy choices of Congress, even though the Supreme Court has given judges the green light to disagree with the policies reflected in the guidelines. Human Right Watch correspondence with Paul J.
Because of this reality, sentences under the Guidelines often bear no relationship to what the Sentencing Commission may have envisioned as appropriate. Harrington , F. Based on their research, Stephen J. Schulhofer and Ilene Nagel estimated that plea negotiation practices circumvented the guidelines in roughly percent of cases resolved through a guilty plea— via charge bargaining, fact bargaining, and guideline factor bargaining— and was particularly likely in drug cases.
Stephen Schulhofer and Ilene H. Prosecutorial charging discretion more likely to circumvent guidelines in cases, such as drug cases, in which mandatory minimum sentences and guidelines anchored by mandatory minimums are tied to the charges for which the defendant is convicted.
The prosecutor would have had to prove such factors beyond a reasonable doubt, providing an additional incentive to the prosecutor to agree to a plea more favorable to the defendant.
He sold cocaine in the community in which he lived. He sold a drug which he knew from his personal experience was addictive and destroyed families. He knew it was wrong. Does magic not feel exciting enough? Install a spell pack. Do you want to roleplay as a non-Dragonborn character? There are mods available just for that. Do you want to replace every dragon with Thomas the Tank Engine trains?
Well, a mod exists for that too. Mods allow you to bend and break Skyrim in any way you see fit. Modding a video game for the first time can seem rather confusing. Most Skyrim modders use short-hand terminology to discuss certain aspects of modding. Here are some common terms:. While there are hundreds of websites that provide mods for Skyrim, only a few of them are used by most modders.
Here are two websites most fans get their mods from:. More websites than these two provide Skyrim mods, but these two are the most popular. Both websites have search bars and tags you can use to find mods that interest you. Installing mods on a console is extremely easy. Once you find a mod you wish to install, select the "install" button. If done in-game, Skyrim will automatically download and install the mod for you. Should you use the website, you can click on "add to library" to install the mod on any console linked to your Bethesda.
Most PC users pick the second option. Before you go on an installing spree, let's go over how to manage your mods and why that's so important. When you install a mod for Skyrim, it gets added to a list of data the game needs to load.
This is typically referred to as your "load order. Modders have found ways around this limit, something we'll go over in the "Useful Modding Tools" section. For now, keep this limit in mind. Load orders become important when multiple mods are being used. Skyrim loads its data sequentially, meaning mods lower on your load order take precedence over files placed higher on your list.
This can be problematic if you have two mods that override the same thing. For example, if you have two mods that modify a town, the town mod lowest in your load order will always be applied. This conflict could result in quests breaking, objects clipping through each other, or crashing. To make sure your mods are working as intended, it's important to make sure your mod load order is correct. There are three common ways to adjust your load order:. This can be accessed from the main menu.
While browsing mods, an option will be present to display your load order. You can move mods up or down on this list as you see fit, disable mods you don't wish to uninstall, or uninstall mods in their entirety. LOOT is a free application that will automatically manage your load order. This is only available for PC.
How do I form a corporation? Once the articles are approved for filing, the corporation is incorporated formed or created. How do I form a nonprofit corporation? A nonprofit corporation is formed the same way a for-profit or business corporation is formed, but the statutory requirements for the articles of incorporation are a little different.
You should seek legal or tax advice, or research the I. S corp, C corp, c3 corp - what do these mean? Those designations pertain only to tax status, and are not actually types of corporations. In Arizona, you would simply form either a for-profit corporation or a nonprofit corporation. Please note that the I. You should research the I.
How do I get tax-exempt status? The Internal Revenue Service I. Consult the I. Should I form a professional corporation? Typically, persons such as doctors, accountants, or lawyers form professional corporations. You should check with the agency or board that licenses your profession to see if it requires you to form a professional corporation or if it prohibits you from forming a professional corporation. The Arizona Corporation Commission staff cannot tell you whether you can or should form a professional corporation, because this issue may involve legal or tax advice, and A.
The corporation is required by law to adopt bylaws. Bylaws are written rules that govern how the corporation operates internally, such as how the Board of Directors will be elected and what votes are required for a particular action. Bylaws can have any provision in them that is not prohibited by law.
See A. Are bylaws filed with the A. Bylaws will not be accepted for filing and they will not be mailed back to you.
Do not submit bylaws to the A. How can I get a copy of a corporation's bylaws? Bylaws are not filed with the A. We suggest contacting the Board of Directors, an officer, or the statutory agent of the corporation.
How do I change the corporation address? The Arizona known place of business address may be changed when the corporation submits its annual report, or it may be changed by submitting a Statement of Change form. How do I change officers or directors? How do I amend articles of incorporation? The corporation must submit Articles of Amendment to the A. The form provided by the A.
Read the Instructions to the Articles of Amendment for detailed information about the sections of the Articles of Amendment form. What is a voting group?
For example, if the corporation has different series of common stock, each series is a voting group. If the corporation has only common stock and not different series of it, then there is only one voting group. How do I move the corporation to another state? An Arizona corporation can become a corporation of another state by submitting a Statement of Domestication to the A. Read the accompanying Instructions to the Statement of Domestication for more information.
You should consult with an attorney so that you can receive appropriate legal advice for your particular needs. How do I report a bankruptcy? Corporations that file bankruptcy must complete and submit to the A. Individuals who file bankruptcy, such as officers or directors, do not need to report that individual bankruptcy to the A. Who can sign documents for a corporation? Corporation documents submitted to the A. How do I get a Certificate of Good Standing?
In the alternative, you may submit a paper Records Request form by mail or in person at W. How can I convert my corporation to an LLC? See the Statement of Conversion and the accompanying instructions. What is a benefit corporation? A benefit corporation is a for-profit corporation formed under A.
You should review the statutes to make sure that the Articles of Incorporation you prepare for your benefit corporation contain all necessary requirements. How do I form a limited liability company "LLC"? Once the articles are approved for filing, the LLC is organized formed or created. Can I form a nonprofit LLC?
No, but you can form an LLC and then apply to the I. Should I form a professional LLC? Typically, persons in licensed professions, such as doctors, accountants, or lawyers, form professional LLCs. You should check with the agency or board that licenses your profession to see if it requires you to form a professional LLC or if it prohibits you from forming a professional LLC. The Arizona Corporation Commission cannot tell you whether you can or should form a professional LLC because this issue may involve legal or tax advice, and A.
Must the LLC have members? Can I have a single member LLC? Can the same person be the only member and the only manager? What if my LLC has a "managing member"?
If the LLC is set up with a Manager Structure it is manager-managed , then it will have one or more managers, and those managers may also be members, but the A. What is the difference between members and managers of an LLC? Members of an LLC are its owners, much like shareholders of a corporation own the corporation.
Managers of LLCs are like the board of directors or the officers of a corporation. If a manager is also a member, then the manager may have an ownership interest in the LLC. If the manager is just a manager and is not also a member, then the manager has no ownership interest in the LLC. If the LLC is member-managed, then the members as a group run the day-to-day operations of the LLC, subject to any operating agreement. Member-managed LLCs where each member has a vote function very similarly to partnerships.
If the LLC is manager-managed, the manager or managers run the day-to-day operations of the LLC instead of the members, subject to any operating agreement. What is "management structure"? When you create an LLC, you must choose how the LLC will conduct its daily affairs by choosing whether it will be manager-managed or member-managed.
Please note that A. We recommend you consult with appropriate professionals, such as a lawyer and an accountant, for advice on your particular needs. What is a manager-managed LLC? This refers to how the LLC is organized, or its management structure see the immediately preceding question and answer.
If the LLC is manager-managed, only managers may sign documents submitted to the A. What is a member-managed LLC? If the LLC is member-managed, only members may sign documents submitted to the A. What is an operating aggreement?
An operating agreement is an agreement that governs relations among the members and the managers and between the members and managers and the limited liability company. The operating agreement may be written, which is recommended, or it may be oral verbal. It may contain any provision that is not contrary to law and that relates to the business of the limited liability company, the conduct of its affairs, its rights, duties or powers and the rights, duties or powers of its members, managers, officers, employees or agents.
For a full description, click to read the statute, A. Does the operating agreement get filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission? Operating agreements are not required by law to be filed, and will not be accepted for filing. Do not send your operating agreement to the A. How do I change the address of the LLC? To change your Principal Address, you simply need to go to your eCorp account and click the link that says, Online Services. From there, find the option that says, Change Address or Statutory Agent.
Continue to follow the prompts and instructions to submit your filing for a Principal Address change. It's as easy as that! If you are looking to make further changes beyond your Principal Address, you may need to file Articles of Amendment. Articles of Amendment, which can also be found by logging into your eCorp account, are used to make changes beyond the Principal Address or Statutory Agent.
How do I change members or managers? If you are only changing the address of existing members or managers, then you may use a Statement of Change of Manager or Member Addresses form, which you can access using the FILE feature.
How do I amend the articles of organization? Although you can submit a paper filing of your Articles of Amendment, as a faster and more convenient option, you may file your Articles of Amendment online by logging into your eCorp account. In your eCorp account, click the link that says, Online Services.
How do I move my LLC to another state? Who can sign documents for LLCs? A company's initial Articles of Organization must be signed by at least one person acting as an organizer.
An organizer may be, but does not have to be, a manager or member of the company. All other documents submitted on behalf of an LLC must be signed by a person who is authorized to sign. A person that signs a document as an authorized agent or legal representative affirms as a fact that they are authorized to sign the document. How can I convert my LLC to a corporation?
What is a foreign corporation or foreign LLC? A foreign entity is a corporation or LLC that was formed or created in a state or country other than Arizona. Entities created under federal or Indian tribal law are also considered foreign entities. Use the FILE feature to access the form and instructions. If a foreign entity wants to transact business or conduct affairs in Arizona, it must register with the Arizona Corporation Commission.
The entity must determine for itself if its activities constitute the transaction of business — the A. What is required for a foreign corporation to obtain authority to transact business in Arizona? Foreign corporations must submit to the A. Additional documents must accompany the Application — read the Instructions to the Application for Authority to ensure that you attach all necessary documents.
Foreign LLCs must submit to the A. Additional documents must accompany the Application — read the Instructions to the Application for Registration to ensure that you attach all necessary documents. If a foreign entity restates or amends its articles in the state or country of its incorporation or formation, then it must file with the A.
For example, if a Texas corporation or LLC amends its articles in Texas, it must file a certified copy of that amendment with the A. As another example, if a Texas corporation or LLC is the surviving entity in a merger, and that merger amended the articles of the Texas corporation or LLC, then a certified copy of the merger must be filed with the A. See also the guide for foreign conversions. This penalty does not apply to foreign LLCs. When is a foreign corporation required to seek new authority to transact business in Arizona?
This applies only to foreign corporations, not LLCs. A foreign corporation must apply for new authority to transact business in Arizona if it changes any of the following:. Access the A. Read the instructions to the Application for New Authority to make sure you attach any necessary documents. How does a foreign corporation amend its application for authority?
It does not amend the original application. Instead, there are circumstances where a foreign corporation might have to seek new authority. See the immediately preceding question and answer. By submitting to the A. Foreign Registration Amendment. Read the Instructions to the Articles of Amendment to make sure you attach any necessary documents. The amendment can be made by submitting Foreign Registration Amendment.
Do LLCs have to file annual reports? Do corporations have to file annual reports? What is my corporation's due date for its annual report? The due date is different for every corporation. Can I get an extension of time to file my annual report? Submit an Annual Report Extension Request along with the fee for the annual report.
How do I file my corporation annual report?
0コメント