Minute Ceder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Winois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Milton I. Shadur

AUG 2.02004

Notified counsel by telephone. dane dockes

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. f
dockiatfoy ddpury initials

oars
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. of
s/202004
courtroom h 8 7 date mailed notice
SN deputy's wg ;
it SN
initials

“ud Datgltime received in
central Clerk's Office

mailing deputy initials

CASE NUMBER 03 CR 36 DATE 8/20/2004
CASE USA vs. Albert M. Rossini
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being prescnted.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
a) Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) 0 Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—sset fort
7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) (1 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) of [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Rossini’s motion to strike restitution is denied
summarily. (77-1)

(ll) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, number of notices.
v | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

)
)
}
}
v. ) No. 03 CR 36
ALBERT M. ROSSINI,
Defendant. }
MEMORANDUM QRDER

Albert Rossini (“Rossini”) has filed what he labels as
“Motion To Strike Restitution,” by which he seeks to prevent the
Bureau of Prisons from deducting $25 quarterly from his current
earnings in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (Rossini
is now serving a 48-month term of imprisonment, imposed by this
Court earlier this year). But as the United States’ response to
Rossini’s motion states:

1. Rossini is a recidivist swindler, having been
convicted and sentenced seven years ago by this Court’s
colleague Honorable Blanche Manning to a prison term, with
Judge Manning’s judgment and commitment order also including
a required $200,000 in restitution and a $40,000 fine.

2. Although this Court imposed no restitution
obligation in this case, because the victim of the offense
of conviction here had previously settled with Rossini and
his codefendant in a civil case, over $230,000 of the

original $240,000 remains unpaid on Judge Manning’s earlier-

ah


imposed restitution and fine.

Those things are dispositive of Rossini’s motion, for the
Bureau of Prisons is not enforcing restitution in this case, so
that no relief can or should be granted by this Court. Quite
apart from the element of high irony pointed out in the
government’s response,' if Rossini is to gain any relief from the
government’s minimal efforts to enforce his long-overdue
obligations (which would seem doubtful at best), it would have to
come from the Bureau or perhaps from Judge Manning. Rossini’s

motion is denied summarily.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 20, 2004

1 In part the United States’ filing contrasts Rossini’s
claim that the annual $100 deduction “places an undue financial
strain imposed on Rossini’s family that it should not have to
bear” with the strain on the victims of Rossini’s depredations
and their families by his original swindles, a strain scarcely
lessened by the quite modest repayments he has made over the
ensuing years.