United States v. Adam Sortini

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Adam Sortini appeals the district court’s order granting the government’s 28 U.S.C. § 2044 motion to apply a $38,000 cash bond to Sortini’s restitution obligation and denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 46(g) motion to exonerate the bond. Sortini posted the bond to secure his presence at sentencing and then later assigned it to a third party. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

FRCP 46(g) requires a district court to release bond monies when a bond condition has been satisfied. Satisfaction of a condition, however, does not automatically release the monies; the district court must enter an order directing their release. See, e.g., United States v. Toro, 981 F.2d 1045, 1046-47 (9th Cir.1992) (ordering the exoneration of bonds in response to FRCP 46 motions). Therefore, as here, absent an order from the district court releasing a bond, the bond remains available for purposes of section 2044

Sortini’s assignment of the bond had no effect on the bond’s availability for application toward his restitution obligation. First, section 2044 addresses “money belonging to and deposited by or on behalf of’ the defendant. Id.…