Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views4 pages
    1) Parish appealed his conviction and sentence for mail fraud and making false statements. 2) The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of loss amount and found Parish's sentence was reasonable. 3) The Court also determined that Parish's claims of ineffective counsel were not supported by the record and must be brought through other proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-4723

    Original Title

    United States v. Parish, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Parish appealed his conviction and sentence for mail fraud and making false statements. 2) The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of loss amount and found Parish's sentence was reasonable. 3) The Court also determined that Parish's claims of ineffective counsel were not supported by the record and must be brought through other proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Parish appealed his conviction and sentence for mail fraud and making false statements. 2) The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of loss amount and found Parish's sentence was reasonable. 3) The Court also determined that Parish's claims of ineffective counsel were not supported by the record and must be brought through other proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-4723

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALBERT E. PARISH, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (2:07-cr-00578-DCN-1)

    Submitted:

    April 16, 2009

    Decided:

    April 22, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mary
    Gordon
    Baker,
    Assistant
    Federal
    Public
    Defender,
    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Eric John Klumb,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Albert
    sentence

    for

    E.

    mail

    Parish,
    fraud,

    Jr.,

    in

    appeals

    violation

    his

    of

    18

    conviction
    U.S.C.A.

    and

    1341

    (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) (Counts One and Four), and making a
    materially false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 1001
    (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) (Count Eleven).

    The district court

    sentenced Parish to 292 months total imprisonment, three years


    of supervised release, and ordered Parish to pay $66,820,167.08
    in

    restitution.

    accordance

    with

    Parishs
    Anders

    v.

    attorney

    has

    California,

    filed

    386

    U.S.

    brief

    738

    in

    (1967),

    challenging the district courts finding relative to the amount


    of loss and claiming abuse of discretion in the imposition of a
    within-guidelines

    sentence,

    but

    meritorious issues for appeal.

    concluding

    that

    there

    are

    no

    Parish has filed a supplemental

    pro se brief, in which he asserts error in the district courts


    rejection of his claim and supporting evidence that his sentence
    was disparate in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6), and
    contends that his attorney was ineffective.

    We affirm.

    Parishs first claim, by counsel, is that the district


    court clearly erred in failing to credit the value of property
    and assets bought with the investors money in determining the
    amount of loss.
    given

    the

    We find his assertion to be without merit,

    uncontroverted

    testimony

    of

    the

    court-appointed

    receiver that, even if the seized assets were credited against


    2

    the loss for guidelines purposes, the amount of loss could not
    go below $50,000,000. 1
    Parish
    have

    sentenced

    also
    him

    alleges

    below

    that

    the

    discretion,

    (2007).

    Gall

    v.

    district

    applicable

    avoid unwarranted disparities.


    of

    the

    court

    guidelines

    should

    range

    to

    A sentence is reviewed for abuse

    United

    States,

    128

    S.

    Ct.

    586,

    597

    Applying a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to

    the guidelines sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216,
    218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
    2456, 2462-69 (2007), we conclude that Parish has not rebutted
    the

    presumption

    of

    reasonableness

    and

    that

    his

    sentence

    is

    reasonable. 2
    Finally,

    Parishs

    claim

    that

    his

    attorney

    was

    ineffective for failing to request a postponement of the offense


    level calculation until the asset liquidation was complete must

    Parish was held accountable for an intended loss of over


    $50,000,000 but less than $100,000,000.
    2

    Even accepting as true Parishs claim that his sentence


    was more severe than the average sentence imposed nationally in
    similar fraud cases does not establish that the district courts
    sentence in this case failed to address the need to avoid
    unwarranted sentence disparities recognized in 3553(a)(6).
    The guidelines as a whole embrace and encompass this need to
    avoid disparity, see United States v. Johnson, 445 U.S. 339, 343
    (4th Cir. 2006), and the district courts sentencing memorandum
    in this case reflects its careful consideration of all
    applicable evidence, including that presented by Parish, on this
    issue.

    be brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255


    (2000),
    record

    unless
    that

    it

    his

    conclusively

    counsel

    was

    appears

    from

    ineffective.

    the

    face

    United

    Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).

    of

    States

    the
    v.

    Parish can make

    no such showing in this case.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We therefore affirm Parishs conviction and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing,


    of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
    for further review.

    If the client requests that a petition be

    filed,

    believes

    but

    counsel

    that

    such

    petition

    would

    be

    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that

    a copy thereof was served on the client.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like