The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Paul Harmon’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction under the retroactive amendment to the 2024 Guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. Harmon, an accountant who embezzled over $1 million from a family-owned company, received a 72-month upward-variance from the Guidelines based on the financial harm to the victims of his scheme. In 2024, he moved for a reduction, and the district court found him ineligible under § 4C1.1, relying on a victim impact statement and letter describing “substantial financial hardship.”
The court held that U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a), which outlines due-process protections for sentencing, applies when considering motions for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), too. That rule requires that defendants receive notice and a chance to rebut new information presented to the Court in the post-conviction proceedings, including motions for sentence reductions, and that the new information bear “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.”
Applying that rule, the Court concluded there was no due-process violation in denying Harmon’s motion. The district court relied on the same victim-impact materials used at the original sentencing to find material facts, so the information reflected in the letter was not “new.” The panel also emphasized the defendant bears the burden to establish eligibility under § 4C1.1 and rejected arguments that the government’s non-opposition waived ineligibility or that the court retroactively applied § 2B1.1(b)(2).
Appeal from the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Opinion by Ambro, joined by Montgomery-Reeves and Roth.