Motion for sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2); The newly created USSG § 4C1.1; § 1B1.10(d); Criteria that a defendant without a criminal history must meet under § 4C1.1(a); Whether defendant had not “personally caused” the victims “substantial financial hardship”

The court held that defendant-Hanson was ineligible for a reduction under USSG § 4C1.1 in his sentence for wire fraud because he had personally caused substantial financial hardship to at least one of his victims. Hanson sought a reduction in his 46-month sentence under § 3582(c)(2), which permits a reduction for a retroactive change to the guidelines after considering the § 3553(a) factors. The government argued that he was not entitled to the reduction because he had “personally caused ‘substantial financial hardship to at least one of his victims.’” The district court agreed and ruled that he was ineligible for a reduction under §4C1.1(a)(6). It also concluded the § 3553(a) factors supported the denial. Section 4C1.1 sets forth 10 requirements for a defendant without a criminal record to qualify for a two-level reduction. On appeal, Hanson disputed the district court’s finding that he failed to meet one of the criteria—that he “‘did not personally cause substantial financial hardship.’” The court first noted that district “courts are not strictly limited to considering the enumerated factors” set forth in “§ 2B1.1 n.4(F) when determining whether a defendant caused substantial financial hardship.” It further noted that “Application Note 4(F) does not describe every type of substantial financial hardship. It merely provides a list of exemplars from which we may extrapolate analogous conduct.” Next, the court concluded “the district court did not err––much less clearly err––in its factual determination that Hanson’s victims suffered substantial financial hardship under § 4C1.1(a)(6).” It found that he had defrauded at least 30 individuals, with total losses of $1,122,805.74. And victims testified to the hardships they endured because of the fraud. The court rejected his claim that the district court did not “make sufficient specific individualized determinations regarding financial hardship.” Affirmed.