Summary
This Third Circuit opinion addresses whether due process protections under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) apply to motions for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court holds that defendants must receive notice and an opportunity to contest any new information relied upon by the district court in such proceedings. Applying this rule, the court affirms the denial of Paul Harmon’s sentence reduction motion, concluding that the victim impact statement he sought to challenge was not new information since it had been presented and considered during his original sentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) due‑process protections apply to motions for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- Whether the victim impact statement and letter constitute "new information" that requires notice and an opportunity to contest under § 6A1.3(a).
Holdings
- U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) applies to motions for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- The victim impact statement was not new information; the defendant had both reason and opportunity to contest it at the original sentencing, so no due‑process violation occurred.
Key quotations
“Defendants must be “given notice of and an opportunity to contest new information relied on by the district court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.”” (at 1)
“We hold that § 6A1.3(a)’s requirements— “sufficient indicia of reliability to support [the] probable accuracy” of information underlying a district court’s decision and “an adequate opportunity to present information to the court”—apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.” (at 1)
Factual background
Paul Harmon, an accountant, pleaded guilty in 2021 to one count of wire fraud after embezzling more than $1 million from his employer, Fuellgraf Electric Company. At sentencing the court considered a victim impact statement describing substantial financial hardship to the victims. In 2024 Harmon moved for a sentence reduction under the newly retroactive § 4C1.1 of the Guidelines; the district court denied the motion, relying in part on the victim impact statement.
Procedural history
The district court sentenced Harmon to 72 months, denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction based on a victim impact statement, and the appellate court previously affirmed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Harmon now challenges the denial on due‑process grounds.