United States v. Pirello
| Decision Date | 11 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-30232,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,00-30232 |
| Citation | 255 F.3d 728 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,, v. MICHAEL D. PIRELLO, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Judy Clarke (Briefed), Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane, Washington, for the defendant-appellant.
Brent A. Hart (Argued), Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane, Washington, for the defendant-appellant.
Thomas O. Rice (Briefed), US Attorney's Office, Spokane, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Rolf H. Tangvald (Argued), US Attorney's Office, Spokane, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00001-WFN
Before: Jerome Farris, Stephen S. Trott, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
This appeal arises from the sentence imposed on defendant-appellant, Michael D. Pirello, who pled guilty to using the Internet to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343. The district court applied a two-level enhancement to Pirello's base offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2F1.1(b)(3) ("U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3)") for using mass-marketing to effectuate his crime. Pirello challenges the applicability of U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3) to his case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, and AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
The Internet engenders a medium of communication that enables information to be quickly, conveniently, and inexpensively disseminated to hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997) (). This quality makes the Internet a well-known and valuable tool for businesses and individuals seeking to advertise their goods to a large number of people. See, e.g., Michael Korybut, Online Auctions of Repossessed Collateral Under Article 9, 31 RUTGERS L.J. 29, 54 n.114 (1999) (). Unfortunately, however, the power to solicit money instantly and inexpensively from hundreds of millions of people though Internet advertising presents a double-edged sword. The same characteristics that make the Internet a valuable tool in today's commerce -i.e., the ability to effectively and efficiently reach a large audience of prospective buyers -also make it a seductive playground for unscrupulous individuals bent on defrauding innocent victims. The facts before us clearly illustrate this point.
During the Fall of 1999, Pirello placed four separate advertisements on an Internet classified-ads website, each soliciting buyers for a different type of computer. The website, known as Excite Classifieds, allows individuals to post classified-ads that can be readily accessed by the general public. See http://classifieds.excite.com/. The advertisements posted by Pirello were part of a fraudulent scheme whereby Pirello would induce prospective buyers to send him money for computers he never intended to deliver.
Pirello took great care in ensuring that his fraudulent Internet advertisements would appear legitimate to even the most cautious of prospective buyers. To accomplish this end, Pirello composed lengthy advertisements describing the non-existent computers in great detail, including the computers' operating systems, monitors, memory capacities, modems, weights, processors, and much more. The advertisements additionally included shipping terms, acceptable forms of payment, information about Pirello, his reasons for selling the computers, and the location of the computers. One of the four advertisements used by Pirello reads as follows:
PC Notebook Dell latitude CPi R, $2,500/OBO, Used
Processor Pentium II
Memory 128 MB
Hard Disk 6.40 GB
Screen 14.1"Active Matrix
Video RAM 4.00 MB
Operating Windows NT 4.0
System
Modem 56 Kbps
CD-ROM 24X
DVD-ROM None
Battery Lithium Ion
Weight 6 lbs
PCMCIA Slots 2
Warranty 3 years
Options Color Display
Infrared
Stereo Speakers
Floppy Disk Drive
Docking Station
Description this is just like new. family death forces
sale of my laptop. i have extra battery and
leather case. will take all offers into
consideration. need to sell asap
Shipping Item is located in: Couer D' Alene, ID 83814
Seller pays shipping
Sales Policy Accepts
Money order or cashier's check
Personal checks
Between October and December of 1999, three individuals responded to Pirello's fraudulent Internet advertisements. Pirello negotiated the sale of a computer to each of the three individuals, assuring them that the computers would be delivered upon his receipt of their payments. Pirello received over $4,000 in checks for the nonexistent computers, which he deposited into his personal bank account. When Pirello's victims did not receive their computers as promised, they immediately contacted the FBI. Pirello admitted to the FBI that he had received several large checks from various individuals, but professed ignorance as to why he had been sent the money.
On February 8, 2000, Pirello was charged in a superseding indictment with three counts of wire fraud and three counts of mail fraud. On March 30, 2000, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Pirello pled guilty to three counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343. At sentencing, over the objection of Pirello the district court increased Pirello's sentence by two levels based on the "mass-marketing" enhancement under U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3). The district court explained that this enhancement was appropriate given that Pirello's use of the Internet allowed for "the broadest possible solicitation" from "a world-wide audience." Pirello appeals this holding by the district court.
We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Kakatin , 214 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court's factual findings in the sentencing phase are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court's application of the facts of a particular case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Leon-Reyes, 177 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 1999).
The interpretation of U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3) presents us with a novel issue. The only circuit to interpret this guideline limited its analysis to the narrow question of whether U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3) retroactively applied to a telemarketing scheme conducted prior to the promulgation of the guideline. See United States v. Coe, 220 F.3d 573, 578-79 (7th Cir. 2000). To date, no court has spoken on the applicability of U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3) to cases involving the use of Internet advertisements to effectuate a fraudulent scheme. We therefore must rely upon (1) the relevant application note as our compass, and (2) logic as our guide in navigating this uncharted territory.
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §§ 2F1.1(b)(3), instructs district courts to enhance a defendant's sentence by two levels "[i]f the offense was committed through mass-marketing . . . ." U.S.S.G.§§ 2F1.1(b)(3). The applicable application note defines "mass-marketing" as follows:
"Mass-marketing," as used in subsection (b)(3), means a plan, program, promotion, or campaign that is conducted through solicitation by telephone, mail, the Internet, or other means to induce a large number of persons to (A) purchase goods or services . . . .
U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1, cmt. n.3 (1998) (emphasis added). We are bound by the interpretative commentary of the Sentencing Guidelines unless it violates the Constitution, a federal statute, or is inconsistent with the guideline itself. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993); United States v. Robinson, 94 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1996).
The application note to U.S.S.G.§§ 2F1.1(b)(3) forecloses any argument by Pirello that his actions did not constitute "mass-marketing" under U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(3). The fact that Pirello posted several advertisements on a classified-ads website demonstrates that his scheme was not an isolated event, but rather a fraudulent "plan, program, promotion, or campaign." U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1, cmt. n.3. Furthermore, by placing a classified ad on the Internet, Pirello was able to solicit funds instantaneously and continuously from over 200 million individuals worldwide. See Reno, 521 U.S. at 849. Such conduct clearly constitutes "solicitation by . . . the Internet . . . to induce a large number of persons to [ ] purchase goods." Thus, under the plain language of the interpretative commentary to U.S.S.G §§ 2F1.1(b)(3), Pirello's actions qualify as mass-marketing.
Pirello argues that his fraudulent advertisements do not qualify as "mass-marketing" because he did not operate a scheme "to induce a large number of persons to [ ] purchase goods . . . ." U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1, cmt. n.3 (emphasis added). In an unpersuasive attempt to support this argument, Pirello notes that only three people responded to his advertisements. As noted by the district court, Pirello's advertisement invited any and all persons to send money for computers that Pirello had no intention of providing. Pirello presents no evidence demonstrating that he ever refused to accept money from a willing buyer or that he would have done so had the opportunity arisen. The relatively low number of individuals actually victimized by Pirello before the FBI ended his scheme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A v. Laurienti
...Guidelines unless it violates the Constitution, a federal statute, or is inconsistent with the guideline itself.” United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2001). At trial, ample evidence demonstrated that Hampton Porter solicited clients in part through cold-calling large number......
-
U.S. v. Sutcliffe
...to be quickly, conveniently, and inexpensively disseminated to hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide." United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir.2001). It is "comparable . . . to both a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications and a sp......
-
Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau.Com, L.L.C.
...Both posting complaints on the website and sending emails requires transmitting writings by means of wire. See United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming sentence imposed after the defendant "pled guilty to using the Internet to commit wire fraud in violation of 1......
-
U.S. v. Hitchcock
... Page 1064 ... 286 F.3d 1064 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Mark Steven HITCHCOCK, Defendant-Appellant ... No ... ...
-
Computer crimes.
...than seventy-percent similar to the copyrighted software" violated federal copyright statute). (31.) See, e.g., United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence for violation of federal wire fraud statute where defendant posted a fraudulent solicitation for mo......
-
Computer crimes.
...carried out by third parties using the software, even if it has other lawful uses). (49.) See, e.g., United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence for violation of federal wire fraud statute where defendant posted a fraudulent solicitation for money on a cl......
-
Computer crimes.
...than seventy-percent similar to the copyrighted software" violated federal copyright statute). (49.) See, e.g., United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence for violation of federal wire fraud statute where defendant posted a fraudulent solicitation for mo......
-
Computer crimes.
...carried out by third parties using the software, even if it has other lawful uses). (49.) See, e.g., United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence for violation of federal wire fraud statute where defendant posted a fraudulent solicitation for money on a cl......