USA v. Hanson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
) MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. )
)
Hunter Brian Hanson, ) Case No. 1:19-cr-089
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
filed on February 8, 2024. See Doc. No. 78. The Government filed a response in opposition to the
motion on March 6, 2024. See Doc. No. 80. The Defendant filed a reply brief on March 27, 2024.
See Doc. No. 84. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2019, the Defendant was charged in an information with wire fraud and money
laundering related to a grain buying scheme which defrauded approximately 60 farmers, elevators,
and grain brokers out of approximately $11,405,134.72. See Doc. No. 1. On July 30, 2019, the
Defendant pled guilty to both of the charged offenses pursuant to a written plea agreement. See Doc.
No. 38. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated a total offense level of 28 with a criminal
history category of I, resulting in an advisory Sentencing Guideline range of 78 - 97 months. See
Doc. No. 44, ¶ 78. The Defendants had a criminal history score of zero.
At sentencing on November 12, 2019, the Court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report
without change. The Court sentenced the Defendant to 97-months of imprisonment and 3 years of
supervised release. See Doc. No. 61.
1
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 10

On February 8, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 contending he was a zero point offender under Part B of
Amendment 821 and thus he should receive a sentence reduction. See Doc. No. 78. The Government
filed a response in opposition to the motion contending Amendment 821 did not alter the Defendant's
advisory Sentencing Guideline range and thus no sentence reduction is warranted. See Doc. No. 80.
The Defendant is serving the remainder of his sentence at a residential reentry center in Minneapolis,
Minnesota which apparently has placed him on home confinement. He has a presumptive release date
of July 16, 2025.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Under the federal sentencing scheme, sentence modifications are available under very limited
circumstances. One circumstance in which a sentence reduction is permitted is when the applicable
Sentencing Guideline range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and it makes the
amendment retroactive. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United
States Code provides as follows:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term
of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement provides as follows:
(a) AUTHORITY.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of
2
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 10

imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has
subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the
Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce
the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction
in the defendant's term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this
policy statement.
(2) EXCLUSIONS.--A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment
is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–
(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable
to the defendant; or
(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
(3) LIMITATION.--Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.
(b) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL--In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall
determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed
in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute
only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.
(2) LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION ON EXTENT OF
REDUCTION.--
(A) LIMITATION.--Except as provided in subdivision (B), the
court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a
term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline
range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection.
3
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 10

(B) EXCEPTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the
term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government
motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to
authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended
guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this
subsection may be appropriate.
(C) PROHIBITION.--In no event may the reduced term of
imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served.
(c) CASES INVOLVING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES AND
SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the case involves a statutorily required
minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below
the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion
to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes
of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined
without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of
Conviction) and § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction).
(d) COVERED AMENDMENTS.--Amendments covered by this policy statement
are listed in Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371,
379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, 657,
702, 706 as amended by 711, 715, 750 (parts A and C only), 782 (subject to
subsection (e)(1)), and 821 (parts A and B, subpart 1 only and subject to
subsection (e)(2)).
(e) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.--
(1) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on
Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court's order is
November 1, 2015, or later.
(2) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Part
A or Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 unless the effective date of
the court's order is February 1, 2024, or later.
U.S.S.G. 1B1.10.
In Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the process for application of a
retroactive guideline amendment, emphasizing that Section 1B1.10 is binding. 560 U.S. 817 (2010).
4
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 10

The Supreme Court instructed that “[a]ny reduction must be consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” and Section 1B1.10 instructs the district court to
“substitute the amended Guidelines range while leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.” Id. at 821 (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court set forth a two-step
approach to apply:
At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instructions
in §1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the
extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, §1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to
begin by “determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
to the defendant” had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial
sentencing. “In making such determination, the court shall substitute only the
amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that
were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline
application decisions
unaffected.” § 1B1.10(b)(1).
Consistent with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, §1B1.10(b)(2) also
confines the extent of the reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is
less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” produced by the substitution.
§1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Only if the sentencing court originally imposed a term of
imprisonment below the Guidelines range does § 1B1.10 authorize a court proceeding
under § 3582(c)(2) to impose a term “comparably” below the amended range. §
1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable §
3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by
reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the
particular circumstances of the case. Because reference to § 3553(a) is appropriate
only at the second step of this circumscribed inquiry, it cannot serve to transform the
proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) into plenary resentencing proceedings.
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
On November 1, 2023, Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines took
effect, pursuant to the Sentencing Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). The amendment
applies retroactively. Amendment 821 has three parts and several subparts: Part A pertains to “Status
5
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 10

Points;” Part B pertains to “Zero-Point Offenders;” and Part C pertains to “Simple Possession of
Marihuana Offenses.”
In Part B Subpart 1 of Amendment 821to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the United
States Sentencing Commission added what now appears in Section 4C1.1, providing a 2- offense-level
reduction for certain offenders who have zero criminal history points. The new provision provides
as follows:
Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders
(a) ADJUSTMENT.—If the defendant meets all of the following criteria:
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter
Four, Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
(3) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in
connection with the offense;
(4) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
(7) the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer,
sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or
induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses
Involving Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights
Offense); and
(10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1
(Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal
enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848;
6
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 6 of 10

decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2
levels
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a).
There is no right to counsel in Section 3582(c) proceedings. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d
1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor is there a right to a hearing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827-28
(observing that, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant need not be present
at a proceeding under Section 3582(c)(2) regarding the imposition of a sentencing modification).
The Defendant in this case has zero criminal history points. To qualify for a 2-level offense
level reduction under Part B of Amendment 821, a defendant with zero criminal history points must
satisfy all ten of the qualifying criteria listed in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The Government contends the
Defendant cannot satisfy this requirement because he does not meet the criterion listed in U.S.S.G.
§ 4C1.1(a)(6), that “the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship.” The
Defendant contends he did not cause substantial financial hardship because he did not receive a
enhancement for substantial financial hardship under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(iii). Rather, the
Defendant received an 2 point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) for an offense
involving more than 10 victims. Section 2B1.1 provides as follows:
(2) (Apply the greatest) If the offense—
(A) (i) involved 10 or more victims; (ii) was committed through
mass-marketing; or (iii) resulted in substantial financial hardship to
one or more victims, increase by 2 levels;
(B) resulted in substantial financial hardship to five or more victims,
increase by 4 levels; or
(C) resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims,
increase by 6 levels.
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2).
7
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 7 of 10

The Court rejects the contention that there can be no finding of substantial financial hardship
absent an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(2)(A)(iii). Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1
provides “[t] application of subsection (a)(6) is to be determined independently of the application of
subsection (b)(2) of §2B1.1.” Section 4C1.1(a)(6) does not itself limit its application to cases where
the enhancement under Section 2B1.1(2)(iii) applied as it does in subsection (2), (8), (9), and (10).
What is required is that the Court consider the non-exhaustive set of factors set forth in Application
Note 4(F) of the Commentary to §2B1.1. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(b)(3). Application Note 4(F) to USSG
§ 2B1.1, provides as follows:
Substantial Financial Hardship.—In determining whether the offense resulted in
substantial financial hardship to a victim, the court shall consider, among other factors,
whether the offense resulted in the victim—
(i) becoming insolvent;
(ii) filing for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code (title 11, UnitedStates Code);
(iii) suffering substantial loss of a retirement, education, or other savings or
investment fund;
(iv) making substantial changes to his or her employment, such as postponing his or
her retirement plans;
(v) making substantial changes to his or her living arrangements, such as relocating
to a less expensive home; and
(vi) suffering substantial harm to his or her ability to obtain credit.
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.4(F)). When the Court considers these non-exhaustive factors in light
of the entire record, it easily concludes the financial hardship was substantial. The losses in this case
went far beyond what is contemplated in Application Note 4(F).
The PSR found “[p]ursuant to USSG §2B1.1(b)(2)(A), two levels are added because the
offense involved more than 10 victims. In this case, approximately 60 victims were financially
8
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 8 of 10

impacted by the defendant’s conduct. See Doc. No. 44, ¶ 19. The PSR also detailed how the
Defendant’s more than 60 victims lost more than $11 million to the Defendant’s scheme. The Court
ordered $11,103,509.19 in restitution to the victim’s of the fraud. See Doc. No. 61, p. 8. An $11
million loss is clearly substantial. The record clearly shows the Defendant caused substantial, long-
term, financial hardship to his victims. The victim impact statements are telling. See Doc. No. 44-1.
It would stand common sense on its head to find the Defendant did not cause his many victims
substantial financial hardship. This is not a close question. The fraud was immense. When family
farmers lose tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will never recoup the loss is gut-
wrenching and intergenerational.
One victim family included three generations of farmers who suffered $259,000 of loss due
to the Defendant’s fraud. See Doc. 44-1 at 1–10. The grandfather noted that his grandson—a
sixth-generation farmer since the family farms were homesteaded in 1899—likely would have faced
bankruptcy but for family support. See Doc. 44-1 at 1–2. The father also noted “[t]his fraud would
have broken my son if not for the family pulling together to help him.” The son/grandson, in his first
year of farming, lost $67,990, to Hanson’s fraud. See Doc. 44-1 at 1, 4. The father said, “We will
never recover from these losses” and Hanson’s fraud “will be a permanent scar for our family
operation and our personal lives.” See Doc. 44-1 at 4. The father expressed concern at losing rental
land because a portion of his loss was owed to the landowner as rental payment, and the father also
was unable to pay a debt owed to Farm Credit Services due to Hanson’s fraud. See Doc. 44-1 at 5–6.
Most of the victims in this case will never recover from the financial setback they have
suffered. The loss was heart-breaking, substantial, and clear. To suggest otherwise defies common
sense. Because the Defendant caused substantial financial hardship to his victims he cannot satisfy
subsection (a)(6) of Section 4C1.1(a). Thus, the Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under
9
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 9 of 10

Part B of Amendment 821.
Having determined the Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction, the Court need not
address the Section 3553(a) factors. The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record and concludes
the Defendant has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016) (the burden is on the defendant to establish a sentence
reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (Doc. No. 78) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2024.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
10
Case 1:19-cr-00089-DLH Document 85 Filed 05/30/24 Page 10 of 10