United States v. Hussein
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24617
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hussein and Bazian operated multiple Englewood stores that were fronts for exchanging food-stamp benefits for cash.
- Spot Mart and Halsted were the primary locations; Route 69 Palace and Spot Chicken also involved in the scheme over more than four years.
- Hussein and Bazian pleaded guilty to eight counts of wire fraud and were sentenced to 60 months with about $1.7 million restitution.
- Loss calculation used by the district court exceeded $1 million, justifying a 16-level increase; Hussein contended the legitimate-profit margin lowered loss to about $900,000.
- District court applied a 4-level § 3B1.1 leader adjustment based on Hussein’s role as organizer/leader with substantial control and involvement.
- Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding the miscalculation of loss did not alter the appropriate guideline range or outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss calculation supported a 16-level rise. | Hussein argued legitimate profit reduced loss to ≈$900k, triggering only 14 levels. | Government asserted loss exceeded $1M including relevant conduct; loss should support 16 levels. | Loss exceeded $1M; district court’s calculation, including relevant conduct, supported 16 levels. |
| Whether the 4-level § 3B1.1 leadership adjustment was warranted. | Hussein urged only 2 levels under § 3B1.1(c) for not multiple participants. | Government contended scheme was otherwise extensive with numerous participants and control over others. | 4-level adjustment affirmed; scheme was otherwise extensive and Hussein exercised substantial control. |
| Whether the within-guidelines sentence is reasonable. | Sentence within guidelines; defense emphasized mitigating factors and lack of drug-trade evidence. | Sentence was unduly harsh and failed to credit mitigation. | Within-range sentence presumed reasonable and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ali, 619 F.3d 713 (7th Cir.2010) (method for calculating loss from food-stamp fraud when precise data is unavailable)
- United States v. Hassan, 211 F.3d 380 (7th Cir.2000) (loss calculation framework for fraud involving food-stamp program)
- United States v. Barnes, 117 F.3d 328 (7th Cir.1997) (loss estimation methodology in fraud cases)
- United States v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.2006) (use of monthly sales estimates for legitimate sales in loss computation)
- United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782 (7th Cir.2005) (alternative method for estimating legitimate sales in loss calculations)
- United States v. Sheikh, 367 F.3d 683 (7th Cir.2004) (extensiveness of scheme under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Frost, 281 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.2002) (criteria for determining otherwise extensive fraud schemes)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir.2010) (factors showing extensive criminal schemes for § 3B1.1 analysis)
- United States v. Blaylock, 413 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.2005) (leader/organizer adjustment requires control over at least one participant)