Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam John SORTINI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-12
Citations: 408 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 09-10514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam John SORTINI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam John SORTINI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10514.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 12, 2011.
Stanley Albert Boone, U.S., Kirk Edward Sherriff, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Anthony P. Capozzi, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.