UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 E. Parish, Jr., appeals his conviction and 

sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 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. Parish’s attorney has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

challenging the district court’s finding relative to the amount 

of loss and claiming abuse of discretion in the imposition of a 

within-guidelines sentence, but concluding that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Parish has filed a supplemental 

pro se brief, in which he asserts error in the district court’s 

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. 

 Parish’s 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. We find his assertion to be without merit, 

given the 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 also alleges that the district court should 

have sentenced him below the applicable guidelines range to 

avoid unwarranted disparities. A sentence is reviewed for abuse 

of discretion, Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007). 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, Parish’s claim that his attorney was 

ineffective for failing to request a postponement of the offense 

level calculation until the asset liquidation was complete must 

 1

 Parish was held accountable for an intended loss of over 

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

2

 Even accepting as true Parish’s claim that his sentence 

was more severe than the average sentence imposed nationally in 

similar fraud cases does not establish that the district court’s 

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 court’s sentencing memorandum 

in this case reflects its careful consideration of all 

applicable evidence, including that presented by Parish, on this 

issue. 

3 
4 

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

(2000), unless it conclusively appears from the face of the 

record that his counsel was ineffective. United States v. 

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). 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 Parish’s 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, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

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

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 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