Opinion ID: 220729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: $30,000 DOJ COPS grant

Text: Parisi raises a similar contention in his reply brief as to the inclusion of $30,000 based on the misapplication of a DOJ COPS grant. The district court stated that [b]oth sides seem to agree that the PSR is inaccurate to the extent it states that Mr. Parisi requested the transfer of those funds. The statement will not be considered by the court. Nevertheless, the restitution order included this amount. Parisi's suggestion is that this was an oversight. The government's somewhat gnostic counter-suggestion is that the district court ruled only that it would not consider at sentencing the PSR's claim that Parisi had requested the transfer, but that it nevertheless intended to include the $30,000 in the restitution order. Once again, it is simply unclear on the record what the district court intended. It is possible that the district court concluded that the $30,000 DOJ COPS transfer was to be excluded from consideration. But we are not in a position to assert as much with any confidence. However, Parisi only raised this issue in his reply brief. As we have noted, issues raised for the first time in an appellant's reply brief are generally deemed waived. United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir.1998). Parisi attempts to circumvent this rule by characterizing the DOJ COPS grant issue as merely another instance of the restitution order including acquitted conduct. But Parisi was not in fact acquitted of this conduct. He was convicted of count 30, which, among other things, alleged misapplication of the COPS grant. The claim is therefore procedurally defaulted.