MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Delmer Gowing, proceeding pro se, moves for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). (Def.’s Mot. for Retroactive Appl. of Amendment 821 (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 152.) Amendment 821 went into effect on November 1, 2023, and applies retroactively.1 See U.S.S.G. §1B1.10. As relevant here, Amendment 821 provides an “Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders” that reduces a defendant’s total offense level by two points if the defendant has no criminal history points, as calculated under §4A of the Sentencing Guidelines, and if the offense of conviction meets certain criteria, including that “the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship” through the offense. Id. §4C1.1. Gowing asserts that he qualifies for the adjustment and requests a sentence reduction in accordance with the reduced guideline range. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) Although Gowing received zero criminal history points (Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 94), he does not qualify for the adjustment because he personally caused substantial financial hardship. Gowing is therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821. As a result, Gowing’s Motion is DENIED. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a “long-running and multifaceted advance fee scheme,” Gowing and Co-Defendant Emil Scheringer told victims that large sums of money were delayed under various natural-resource contracts overseas. (Government’s Mem. in Opp’n (“Mem.”), ECF No. 158, at 2.) Gowing and Scheringer asked victims to contribute funds to pay certain fees, promising that they would receive substantial returns on their investments once the delayed money was released. (Id.) Gowing was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida and admittedly used his status as an attorney to persuade victims to give money to the scheme. (Id. (citation omitted).) In one instance, Gowing convinced a former client to contribute $50,000 to the scheme and corresponded with her over the course of several years to assure her she would be paid back. (Mem. at 2; PSR
27-36.) According to her victim impact statement, she never recouped the funds and lost $50,000 in savings as a result. (PSR
