United States of America v. Adam John Sortini

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JOHN SORTINI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10514
D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00100-OWW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Adam Sortini (“Sortini”) was convicted of 17 counts of mail fraud, and one
count of health care fraud. He moved for a new trial, arguing his attorney was
FILED
JAN 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

ineffective in both pretrial preparation and at trial. He appeals the district court’s
denial of that motion.
This case does not present a record regarding trial preparation that is
sufficiently developed for us to decide whether Sortini’s attorney rendered
ineffective pretrial assistance. See United States v. Sager, 227 F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th
Cir. 2000).
With regard to trial performance, the evidence against Sortini was so
overwhelming that he cannot show that counsel’s performance could have
prejudiced him. See, e.g., Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 1002 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because Sortini is required to show both deficient performance and prejudice in
order to prevail on his ineffective assistance claim, this shortcoming is fatal. See
Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668, 697 (1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --