Usually, no. A presidential pardon granted to restore civil rights, or to lessen the stigma of a conviction, does not take that sentence out of a later federal criminal-history score. The instruction is commentary to the guideline that says which past sentences count. The guideline text itself excludes only an expunged conviction.

What the points measure

In a later federal case, the judge uses the sentencing guidelines to turn past sentences into points and a criminal history category. The manual now in effect is the Guidelines Manual of November 1, 2026. The guidelines are advisory. The judge still considers the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The score does not set the sentence by itself. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Under §4A1.1, the main additions are 3 points for a sentence of imprisonment longer than one year and one month, 2 points for a sentence of imprisonment of at least 60 days, and 1 point for each other prior sentence, with a cap of 4 points on that last group. A prior sentence is one imposed earlier after a guilty plea, a trial, or a no-contest plea, for conduct that is not part of the new offense (§4A1.2(a)(1)). The length that matters is the maximum term of imprisonment imposed, not the days actually served. If part of that term was suspended, only the part that was not suspended counts (§4A1.2(b)).

Expunged convictions are the ones the text drops

§4A1.2(j) says: "Sentences for expunged convictions are not counted."

An expungement is a court remedy. A pardon is not one. The Pardon Attorney's FAQ says a pardon does not erase the conviction, and that both the conviction and the pardon remain on the record. Our page on what a pardon cannot do walks through that limit. The guideline text does not treat a pardon as an expungement.

The commentary still counts that pardon

Application Note 10 to §4A1.2 is titled "Convictions Set Aside or Defendant Pardoned." It says:

A number of jurisdictions have various procedures pursuant to which previous convictions may be set aside or the defendant may be pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. Sentences resulting from such convictions are to be counted. However, expunged convictions are not counted.

The note covers a pardon granted for a reason other than innocence or a legal error. The examples match the Pardon Attorney's description of a pardon: it removes civil disabilities imposed because of the conviction, such as limits on voting, holding state or local office, or sitting on a jury, and it should lessen the stigma. The same FAQ says a pardon does not signify innocence.

A different note covers the opposite situation. Application Note 6 says a sentence is not counted when the conviction was reversed or vacated for a legal error, or because of later evidence that exonerates the person, or when a court in an earlier case ruled the conviction constitutionally invalid. A pardon does not reverse the conviction.

Note 10 also speaks to some convictions a court has set aside for reasons unrelated to innocence or legal error. This page is about a presidential pardon of a federal offense. That power is in Article II, Section 2. It reaches offenses against the United States, not a conviction under state law. A separate state sentence can still count as a prior sentence under §4A1.2.

The time limits still apply

Note 10 does not erase the time rules in the guideline text. §4A1.2(e) provides:

  • A sentence of imprisonment of more than one year and one month counts if it was imposed within 15 years of the start of the new offense, or if the person was incarcerated on that sentence during any part of that 15-year period.
  • Any other prior sentence counts if it was imposed within 10 years of the start of the new offense.
  • A sentence outside those windows is not counted.

The commentary to §4A1.2 says the start date includes related conduct, not only the date charged in the new case. A pardon does not put a sentence back into the score after those windows have closed. Under Note 10, it also does not take out a sentence that the windows still include.

A commutation is not covered by this note

Note 10 does not mention a commutation. A commutation reduces a sentence the person is still serving. It does not change the fact of the conviction. Our page on what a commuted sentence means explains what the warrant changes. Do not read Note 10 as a scoring rule for a commutation.

The note is commentary, and a case about commentary is pending

The pardon instruction sits in the commentary, not in the text of §4A1.2(j). §1B1.7 says commentary that interprets a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline. The manual quotes Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993), for that rule.

On October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard argument in Beaird v. United States, No. 25-5343. It granted review limited to whether Stinson still correctly states the rule for the deference courts must give guideline commentary. The docket lists the argument and does not list a decision. This post states what the 2026 manual says. It does not say how the Court will rule.

What this means for you

  • A pardon granted for the reasons in Note 10 leaves the sentence in the criminal-history score. It does not do what an expungement does. The Pardon Attorney says expungement is a court remedy, rarely granted, and not something the President can order.
  • In a new federal sentencing, both the conviction and the pardon should be in the record the court uses.
  • Civil disabilities are a separate question. Federal jury service after a pardon is one of them. The petition timing rule is 28 C.F.R. § 1.2. Our guides on what a pardon is and how to apply cover that side of the request.

Book a consultation and tell us what happened. We'll listen, tell you whether we can help, and explain what comes next.