United States of America v. Parrish Austin, also known as P, also known as Too Klean

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3245
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Parrish Austin, also known as P, also known as Too Klean
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: February 9, 2026
Filed: May 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Despite distributing cocaine and defrauding the government, Parrish Austin
believes his 240-month prison sentence is unreasonably high. Reviewing for an
abuse of discretion, we affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
After Austin pleaded guilty to two counts—one for conspiracy to distribute
drugs, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and the other for wire fraud, see
18 U.S.C. § 1343—the district court1 varied downward to 240 months. It thought
the career-offender enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), was “too blunt of an
instrument” in his case.
Although the court varied downward by 52 months, it declined to go any
further. The reason was Austin’s criminal history, which showed that he
“exploit[ed] the weaknesses of others” for his own “personal gain.” See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1) (requiring a district court to consider “the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”). Add the fact that
his conviction for wire fraud had no incremental effect on the advisory range, and a
further reduction would have understated the “seriousness of” his actions. Id.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A); see United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that “it is nearly inconceivable” that a refusal to vary downward even
further was an abuse of discretion (citation omitted)).
His pro se arguments fare no better. There was no abuse of discretion in
declining to let him replace counsel. See United States v. Kelley, 774 F.3d 434, 438
(8th Cir. 2014). Nor was his plea unknowing or involuntary, particularly once the
court told him that his sentence could be longer than ten years. See United States v.
Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 2006). And finally, we cannot overrule circuit
precedent, see United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d 1048, 1060 (8th Cir. 2018), or
conclude on this record that the losses caused by the fraud were lower than $18,332,
see United States v. Alexander, 679 F.3d 721, 729 (8th Cir. 2012).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --