United States of America v. Daniel E. Salley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 4, 2023 *
Decided May 15, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2662
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL E. SALLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 1:01-cr-00750
Sharon Johnson Coleman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Daniel Salley, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to recover
property that was allegedly seized during the government’s investigation and
prosecution of his criminal offenses. The district court denied this motion on the ground
that Salley’s sizable restitution balance precluded him from recouping anything from
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2662 Page 2
the government. We affirm, but on a separate ground. Because Salley filed his motion
nine years after the statute of limitations expired, it is time-barred, and we therefore
affirm.
The sentence for Salley’s 2006 conviction for attempted murder and bank
robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1113, 2113(d), required him to pay approximately $3.5 million in
restitution. In May 2021, fifteen years into his prison term of life plus 132 years, Salley
filed a “motion for the return of all properties.” In it, he demanded the return of certain
personal property and assets, such as bank accounts, that the government allegedly had
seized around the time of his arrest in 2001 but had never acquired through forfeiture.
He estimated “the equivalent of all property seized, interfered with, denied access to”
to be $555 quintillion and requested that sum as damages. Before receiving a ruling, on
February 8, 2022, Salley filed another motion, this time asking for the return of funds
allegedly seized under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) on the grounds that the
amount exceeded his debts to federal agencies. The government did not respond to
either motion. 1
The district court denied the motion for return of TOP funds on February 17,
2022. The court noted that Salley had failed to show that he had paid $3.5 million in
restitution, which had grown to more than $5 million. The court held that Salley had to
repay that debt before he could seek to recoup any funds from the government. More
than six months later, on September 2, 2022, the district court ruled on Salley’s May
2021 motion for return of property, denying the motion “for the same reasons” that it
had stated in the February 2022 order. Salley filed a notice of appeal on September 19,
2022.
On appeal, Salley primarily discusses issues related to his TOP motion, but the
60-day window to appeal the order of February 17, 2022, closed in April 2022. See FED.
R. A PP. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to review that
ruling. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209–13 (2007). As to the district court’s September
2, 2022, order, Salley’s notice of appeal is timely.
Turning to that September 2, 2022, order, Salley’s motion for the return of his
property was properly denied. The government points out on appeal that Salley had six
years from the conclusion of his criminal proceedings to seek the return of any seized
1 Unlike with Salley’s motion for compassionate release, which was pending at
the same time, the district court did not set a briefing schedule.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2662 Page 3
property. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(g); United States v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 708–09 (7th Cir.
2004). His motion, filed 15 years after sentencing, was too late, and its denial was
proper.
Finally, Salley appended a motion for sanctions to his reply brief, asserting that
government counsel deliberately lied about the mailing date on a certificate of service.
We do not consider purported motions made in briefs. See FED. R. A PP. P. 38; Kennedy v.
Schneider Elec., 893 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We note, however, that Salley’s
assertions appear unwarranted by the record.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --