To learn about the sentences received by specific classes of Federal offenders and thus provide an initial basis for guidelines development, data were collected and extracted from 5,781 recent (1974 throug 1978) Federal presentence investigation reports. These reports document the nature and extent of the crimes and characteristics of the offenders for a sample of 11 offense categories. Defendants in the sample were predominantly male, disproportionately black, and over 40 years old, on the average. Approximately 50 percent of the convicted offenders received prison sentences. To identify perceptions of the importance of each of the major goals of sentencing, a survey of 264 Federal judges, 103 U.S. Attorneys, 110 defense attorneys, 113 probation officers, 1,248 members of the public, and 550 incarcerated Federal offenders was conducted. Judges indicated that they regard deterrence as especially important. Disagreement was greatest among judges with regard to the goals of rehabilitation and just desserts. To explore the issue of sentencing disparity, the relationship between goal orientation and sentence severity was articulated from survey responses. Three basic systems on which sentencing guidelines could be built were developed: historical norms, the just desserts philosophy, and the utilitarian system. Any system of sentencing guidelines should be fair; at a minimum, standards of due process must be met. The report suggests that the standard of fairness can be jeopardized by sentencing guidelines if they were to cause sentencing discretion to shift excessively to the prosecutor. Also to be considered in guidelines development is the effect of guidelines on prison populations and the parole release process. Several exhibits and extensive reference notes are provided. (Author summary modified).