Sentencing guidelines have been proposed as a means of reducing sentence disparity and arbitrariness in Federal courts; however, opponents argue that sentencing disparity and illogic do not derive only from the exercise of judicial discretion, since U.S. attorneys determine the charge under which a conviction is obtained and sometimes make sentence recommendations. This essay examines the roles of district court judges, U.S. attorneys, and correctional officials involved in the Federal sentencing process. In part, data are drawn from surveys with judges, U.S. attorneys, and defense attorneys. Further, the study is based on an extensive analysis of sentencing in the Federal criminal courts. Survey results reveal that judges remain the dominant figure in sentencing, even when conviction results from a guilty plea. While the prosecutor's influence cannot be discounted, particularly in determining the charge under which conviction is obtained, it does not measure up to that of the judge. Federal court judges perceive that under sentencing guidelines, discretion will be reduced both for judges and prosecutors. Empirical findings on actual sentences revealed that many factors were considered during sentencing and that conviction under a guilty plea did not dominate other factors. Sentence concessions were derived from judicial initiative more so than from charge and count bargaining. Finally, it does not appear that sentencing guidelines will shift sentencing discretionary authority from judges to prosecutors. Ten notes and 21 references are provided.