Defendant pleaded guilty to various identity-theft offenses. At sentencing, the district court concluded defendant’s advisory guidelines range on three grouped offenses was 27 to 33 months. Defendant appealed, challenging the 27-month component of her sentence and arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that unusable devices should not have been calculated in her intended loss.
Where district court rejected co-defendant making a similar unusable-device argument and because an access device need not be used to be counted in intended loss, defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to make the argument and the district court correctly calculated defendant’s sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
U.S. v. Parrott (MLW No. 72194/Case No 18-1094 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri