Pressure in the 1970s to reform the sentencing process can be attributed to a change in perceived public sentiment regarding the utility of treatment and to the belief that sentencing disparity was a severe problem. Primary reform occurred in the Federal judicial system with the development and implementation of rigorous sentencing guidelines. The research reported here examines sentencing patterns in a Federal probation and parole caseload during the period preceding the move to the use of sentencing guidelines in the Federal judicial system in terms of the issues being raised at the time. This examination of sentencing patterns for one Federal district in the mid-seventies does not support the claim of a need for reform to reduce sentencing disparity in the Federal courts. An evaluation of sentencing patterns for this Federal judicial district indicates that sentencing disparity is not severe. Most Federal offenders are relatively mild and consistently receive relatively mild sentences. Tables, references