Donald Dorosheff v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 9, 2026*
Decided June 9, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2900
DONALD DOROSHEFF,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 16-CR-30049
Sue E. Myerscough,
Judge.
O R D E R
Donald Dorosheff, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to return forfeited property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Because the government no longer possesses Dorosheff’s property, we
dismiss the appeal as moot.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED .
R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2900 Page 2
After a bench trial in March 2022, Dorosheff was convicted of two counts of
receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1), and
one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B)
and (b)(2). The government moved for a preliminary order of forfeiture, seeking to
obtain Dorosheff’s digital devices that contained child pornography: a laptop, an
external hard drive, a memory card, and five flash drives. See 18 U.S.C. § 2253; F ED. R.
C RIM . P. 32.2. Without objection, the district court granted the government’s motion and
entered the preliminary forfeiture order. The court later sentenced Dorosheff to
concurrent terms of 84 months in prison on each of the two counts. The court further
ordered the forfeiture of Dorosheff’s interest in any property used in the offense,
making the preliminary order final. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 77 F.4th 565, 576
(7th Cir. 2023) (citing F ED. R. C RIM . P. 32.2). Dorosheff did not move for a stay pending
appeal.
Dorosheff appealed his convictions to this court, but he did not contest the
forfeiture order. See United States v. Dorosheff, 110 F.4th 999, 1003 (7th Cir. 2024). We
affirmed his convictions. See id. at 1007.
Over a year later, on August 14, 2025, Dorosheff filed a motion seeking return of
the forfeited property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
district court ordered the government to respond and specify whether the seized items
had been disposed of. In its response, the government opposed Dorosheff’s motion and
stated that his devices remained in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s custody.
The district court denied the motion on August 25. The court explained that Rule
41(g) applies to property that the government has seized, but not to property forfeited
to it. If Dorosheff wanted to challenge the forfeiture order, the court continued, he
needed to do so on direct appeal. Any challenge at this stage, in the court’s view, was
an improper collateral attack on his conviction.
Dorosheff’s motion for reconsideration was promptly denied. On October 22, he
filed a notice of appeal.
Two months later, the government filed a “Notice of Destruction of Property.”
According to the notice, Dorosheff’s property was destroyed “on or about September
10, 2025.” The government attached chain-of-custody records maintained by the FBI
showing that each forfeited device was destroyed. In the notice, the government raised

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2900 Page 3
the issue of mootness, pointing out that this was a jurisdictional issue that could be
raised at any time, should Dorosheff seek relief under Rule 41(g).
Dorosheff appeals, but the government now asserts that the appeal is moot
because the digital devices were destroyed and thus cannot be returned. When the
government no longer possesses the property at issue, no relief is available under
Rule 41(g). United States v. Stevens, 500 F.3d 625, 628 (7th Cir. 2007). The government
asserts that it destroyed Dorosheff’s property in September 2025, citing as evidence the
chain-of-custody records attached to its notice of destruction of property.
See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 41(g). Dorosheff does not dispute that these documents are valid or
that the property no longer exists, and regardless, Dorosheff may not challenge the
forfeited property through a Rule 41(g) motion, see Troconis-Escovar v. United States,
59 F.4th 273, 276 (7th Cir. 2023).
We DISMISS the appeal as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --