United States v. Haileselassie
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3881
| 8th Cir. | 2012

Background

  • Haileselassie mailed a threatening letter with a powdery substance to a Bettendorf, IA police officer; lab later determined powder was benign (baby powder and carpet cleaner).
  • Haileselassie pled guilty to mailing a threatening communication under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) and was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment.
  • The district court ordered restitution to the State Hygienic Laboratory for $1,401.44, arguing the offense caused that expenditure.
  • MVRA requires restitution to a victim directly and proximately harmed by a qualifying offense, including crimes of violence defined by § 16.
  • The government argued § 876(c) is a crime of violence, enabling MVRA restitution to the State Lab; Haileselassie challenged this and the restitution amount.
  • The court held § 876(c) is a crime of violence for MVRA purposes, but the evidence failed to prove actual loss; restitution was reversed and remanded for elimination of restitution obligation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether § 876(c) is a crime of violence for MVRA restitution Haileselassie contends § 876(c) lacks violent-force elements. Gov't asserts the threat element falls within § 16(a) violence. Yes, § 876(c) is a crime of violence under MVRA.
Whether the State Lab qualifies as a MVRA victim State Lab suffered direct and proximate harm from the threat. Lab costs are not traditionally victim losses under MVRA. The State Lab can be a MVRA victim.
Whether the restitution amount reflects actual loss State Lab's testing costs amounted to $1,401.44. Costs are investigative/prosecutorial expenses not recoverable as direct losses. Actual loss not proven; reverse restitution order to eliminate restitution.

Key Cases Cited

  • Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004) (categorical approach to 'crime of violence' in § 16(a))
  • United States v. Forrest, 611 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements-based inquiry for § 16(a) crimes of violence)
  • United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (threats to injure or kidnap within § 16(a))
  • Left Hand Bull v. United States, 901 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1990) (threats to injure or kidnap fall within § 16(a))
  • Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (violent felony definition under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) related to purposeful, violent conduct)
  • Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (U.S. 2010) (clarifies 'physical force' concept in violence analysis)
  • United States v. Tessmer, 659 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes Begay's facts from § 876(c)-like offenses)
  • United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2003) (allowance of restitution for costs to determine imminent threat)
  • United States v. Quillen, 335 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (restitution for government costs in threat cases)
  • United States v. Senty-Haugen, 449 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2006) (government entities can be MVRA victims)
  • United States v. Petruk, 484 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2007) (MVRA compensates actual losses to victims)
  • United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden of proving restitution factual causation)
  • United States v. Salcedo-Lopez, 907 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1990) (costs of investigation/prosecution not direct losses)
  • United States v. Menza, 137 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 1998) (invoices insufficient to prove exact loss without explanation)
  • United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing investigative costs from actual loss for restitution)
Read the full case