Sixth Circuit considers zero-point offender’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.

Shefiu Hanson pleaded guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy charges which stemmed from a fraudulent scheme to induce businesses to wire money to accounts that he controlled. The total loss to the thirty victims of the fraud was more than 1.1 million dollars. Mr. Hanson was sentenced to 46 months and subsequently moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Mr. Hanson’s motion was based on Amendment 821, which created U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). The guideline provides for a two-level offense reduction for certain zero-point offenders and applies retroactively to defendants sentenced before Amendment 821 went into effect. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Although Mr. Hanson had no criminal history points, the district court found that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(6) because he caused substantial financial harm to his victims. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Hanson, --- F.4th --- ((6th Cir. 2025). https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0003p-06.pdf

Section 4C1.1(b)(3) played a large part in the Sixth Circuit’s analysis. The guideline provides that in determining whether “substantial financial hardship” resulted from the defendant’s “acts or omissions,” the district court “shall consider, among other things, the non-exhaustive list of factors provided in Application Note 4(F) of the Commentary to § 2B1.1.” The Sixth Circuit emphasized that district courts are not limited to considering only the factors in § 2B1.1 n.4(f) when determining whether “substantial financial hardship” is established. In this case a victim impact statement as well as information in the PSR showed that several victims experienced “substantial financial hardship.”