Research found that different determinate sentencing strategies had distinct influences on sentencing predictors and outcomes. This result is particularly important given that numerous systems currently operate under coexisting determinate sentencing strategies. These findings support the call to integrate distinct determinate sentencing strategies and the rationales behind them into modern sentencing theory. In order to determine either how the impact of one intervention (i.e., sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum) affects sentencing outcomes or the operation of the other intervention and vice versa, this study disaggregated the effects of coexisting determinate sentencing strategies using Federal sentencing drug offense data from 1997-1998. By separating and estimating the effects of the coexisting Federal determinate sentencing strategies, sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum statutes, it was found that the predictors of sentencing outcomes varied in terms of significance and operation for the guidelines and mandatory minimum cases. Tables, notes, references