United States v. Joseph Parillo
Docket: 93-3499
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; January 6, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Joseph Parillo appealed his sentence following a remand for resentencing. The previous appeal (United States v. Parillo) criticized the district court's method for calculating Parillo's base level, which improperly assessed loss based on the total cost of all policies sold rather than the actual loss experienced by victims. The appellate court directed the district court to evaluate loss based on the difference between what was promised and what was delivered. Upon remand, the district court recalculated Parillo's base level, attempting to accurately assess actual loss. The appellate court found this new methodology to be a reasonable estimate of the loss caused by Parillo's actions, in accordance with U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1. Parillo also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that the denial of his post-remand motion for a new trial was indicative of his counsel's shortcomings. The appellate court stated that such claims are generally not suitable for consideration on direct appeal without extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the district court's sentencing order. The decision was issued by Judges Boggs and Norris, along with District Judge Bell, sitting by designation.