United States v. Parnell
959 F.3d 537
2d Cir.2020Background
- Linda Sue Parnell, a former VA nurse receiving OWCP benefits, submitted Medical Travel Refund Request Forms to the Department of Labor for mileage reimbursements.
- Between Jan. 2, 2010 and Aug. 30, 2016 she submitted forms claiming 1,771 YMCA trips though she actually visited only five times, receiving $72,207.16 in improper reimbursements.
- Indicted for wire fraud in Aug. 2017; four charged wire transactions (totaling $2,269.64) fell within the five-year statute of limitations.
- Parnell pleaded guilty in 2018 to four counts of wire fraud, admitting to a scheme to defraud dating back to 2010.
- District court ordered forfeiture and restitution for the full $72,207.16 (2010–2016 losses); Parnell appealed, arguing losses before Aug. 2012 were barred by the five-year statute of limitations.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding MVRA restitution may include losses from the same scheme even if some losses occurred outside the statute-of-limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVRA restitution may include losses from the same fraudulent scheme that occurred outside the statute-of-limitations period for the underlying offense | Restitution may not reach losses before Aug. 2012 because wire fraud has a five-year statute of limitations | MVRA requires restitution for all losses "in the course of the scheme"; because Parnell’s guilty plea admitted a scheme from 2010–2016 and some convicted acts fell within limitations, all scheme losses are recoverable | Court affirmed: MVRA authorizes restitution for all losses caused by the same scheme, including those outside the limitations period, where some convicted conduct occurred within the limitations period |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for restitution under MVRA)
- United States v. Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 627 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (statutory-construction principles)
- United States v. Ellis, 938 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2019) (MVRA restitution may include losses outside limitations where part of same scheme)
- United States v. Anieze-Smith, 923 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2019) (same)
- United States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (same)
- United States v. Ekanem, 383 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2004) (government qualifies as a "victim" under the MVRA)
- United States v. Green, 897 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2018) (distinguished; involved separate offenses where "scheme" was not an element)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (older statute-of-limitations authority; distinguished because it predated the MVRA)