United States v. Tessema Lulseged
688 F. App'x 719
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tessema Lulseged, owner of Big T Supermarket in Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of SNAP (food-stamp) trafficking for exchanging benefits for cash at about $0.60 on the dollar from 2009–2014.
- Government alleged total redemptions of $8,085,926.29 and documented eligible inventory sales far lower, yielding a large calculated loss to the program.
- At arraignment and plea hearings Lulseged, a native Amharic speaker, stated he understood and could communicate in English; neither he nor counsel requested an interpreter at plea or sentencing.
- PSI applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 loss enhancements (resulting in offense level 26 initially, later adjusted to 24) and recommended restitution and forfeiture tied to the loss calculation; Lulseged objected to the loss amount.
- After evidentiary hearings the district court adopted the government’s vendor-based methodology, found total loss of $6,361,450.16 (restitution set at $5,930,450.16 after concession), sentenced Lulseged to 51 months, and entered a forfeiture order reduced by prior civil forfeitures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to inquire about need for interpreter at plea/sentencing | Lulseged: judge had duty to ask if interpreter required; proceeding may have been incomprehensible | Government/district court: Lulseged and counsel represented he understood English; no notice requiring further inquiry | No plain or reversible error; no obligation to provide interpreter absent indication of deficiency; plea/sentencing fundamentally fair |
| Adequacy of government's proof of total-loss amount | Lulseged: government failed to meet burden and used unreliable calculations | Government: proved loss by preponderance via vendor records and redemption totals; judge may reasonably estimate loss | De novo/mixed review: district court’s vendor-based method was reasonable; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Guidelines enhancement based on loss amount | Lulseged: enhancement (18 levels) improper because loss overstated | Government: enhancement appropriate given proven loss between thresholds | Held: enhancement supported by accepted loss calculation; sentencing range proper |
| Restitution and forfeiture amounts tied to loss calculation | Lulseged: restitution/forfeiture wrongly based on inflated loss | Government: restitution may be reasonable estimate of victims’ loss; forfeiture follows restitution | Held: restitution and forfeiture orders upheld as reasonable and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (error-preservation and plain-error framework)
- Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1989) (duty to inquire about interpreter when defendant shows difficulty with English)
- United States v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1980) (interpreter inquiry where record suggests need)
- United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2009) (loss in entitlement-program cases measured by benefits obtained/diverted)
- United States v. Campbell, 765 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2014) (district courts must make reasonable estimate of loss; methodology fact-dependent)
- United States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 2006) (clear-error review of loss fact findings; de novo review of methodology)
- United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 2015) (restitution may be a reasonable estimate proven by preponderance)
- United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711 (11th Cir. 2014) (restitution must reflect loss caused by defendant's conduct)