United States v. Jamal Aden
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13765
8th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Jamal Mohamud Aden owned two St. Paul convenience stores (SPG1, SPG2) certified to accept SNAP/EBT benefits.
- Investigators and confidential informants documented exchanges of SNAP benefits for cash and purchases of non-approved items; surveillance showed numerous suspicious transactions and at least 46 instances with Aden participating.
- Aden pled guilty to wire fraud for trafficking SNAP benefits. The PSR used a loss calculation based on a statistical comparison to three nearby non-fraudulent stores, producing a total fraudulent-transaction figure of about $206,603.37.
- The Government adjusted that figure downward to $194,869 (crediting transactions to Aden’s business partner) for Guidelines purposes and ordered restitution of $189,567.30 (further crediting payments by some customers).
- District court adopted the $194,869 loss for Guidelines (range 15–21 months), granted a government §5K motion, and sentenced Aden to eight months; Aden appealed challenging loss, restitution, and sentence reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss amount for Guidelines | Government: comparative-statistical analysis shows ~$194,869 loss attributable to Aden | Aden: only transactions corroborated on video (totaling $7,559.13) should count | Court: affirmed $194,869; comparative method was a reasonable estimate supported by preponderance of evidence |
| Restitution under MVRA | Government: restitution equals full victim loss minus amounts already paid by others | Aden: restitution is based on speculative, inflated loss calculation | Court: affirmed restitution ($189,567.30); restitution follows adopted loss and MVRA requires full victim loss |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Government: district court acted within discretion, granted §5K departure | Aden: sentencing procedure or calculation was flawed | Court: affirmed; review for abuse of discretion found no error (also appeal moot as defendant released) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Government: eight-month sentence reasonable given §5K motion and facts | Aden: eight months substantively unreasonable | Court: affirmed; no abuse of discretion and mootness noted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fazio, 487 F.3d 646 (8th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of Guidelines loss interpretation)
- United States v. Farrington, 499 F.3d 854 (8th Cir.) (fraud loss calculation reviewed for clear error; reasonable estimate suffices)
- United States v. Coon, 187 F.3d 888 (8th Cir.) (clarifying clear-error standard for loss findings)
- United States v. Jones, 641 F.3d 706 (6th Cir.) (upholding comparative statistical analysis in SNAP fraud loss proof)
- United States v. Statman, 604 F.3d 529 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for restitution under MVRA)
- United States v. Lange, 592 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.) (MVRA requires award of full amount of victims' losses)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 889 (8th Cir.) (discussing mootness where defendant released from custody)