Although the existing research on the results of sentencing reforms is somewhat mixed, sentences do appear more punitive today then they were in the past. The obvious results have been a dramatic increase in the Nation’s prison population. Although guideline sentences appear to be more uniform and less disparate than sentences given previously, extra legal factors still play a role. The findings from this study provide evidence of this. Specifically, racial and ethnic minorities and women in some districts are still sentenced differently than Whites and men for drug offenses. The study also demonstrates that departure decisions are significant predictors of decisions about sentence length. Given the findings, it is clear that extralegal variables continue to influence sentencing outcomes under guideline-based sentencing, even with rigorous mandatory minimums in place. Race, ethnicity, gender, and citizenship statues, in some contexts, either directly or indirectly through departures, are still significant predictors of outcomes in the Federal criminal justice system. These findings suggest that discretionary decisions regarding sentence length and the magnitude of sentence discounts for narcotics offenders introduce unwarranted disparity into the Federal sentencing process. Sentencing reforms and the war on drugs have greatly changed the landscape of Federal sentencing and the composition of the Federal prison population. Sentencing reforms were enacted (i.e., Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines) in an attempt to make sentences more proportional, more uniform, and less disparate. This research study analyzed the decisonmaking practices of judges for narcotic violations in four districts in the southwestern United States. The purpose is to illustrate that even in districts that have similar types of cases and political agendas regarding narcotics offending, interdistrict variation in the factors that affect sentencing outcomes still exist. Tables, notes, and references