United States of America v. $38,916.00 in U.s. Currency

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 17, 2026*
Decided February 19, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
$38,916.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant.
APPEAL OF:
MICHAEL A. TOVAR,
Claimant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 4:21-cv-04113-SLD
Sara Darrow,
Chief Judge.
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1954 Page 2
O R D E R
Michael Tovar pleaded guilty to gun and drug charges in 2021. After a
sentencing hearing, the district court found that $38,916 in cash seized from Tovar’s
home was drug proceeds that could be converted to its equivalent weight in marijuana;
the court then sentenced Tovar to 101 months. We affirmed his conviction and sentence,
as well as the district court’s finding that the seized cash was drug proceeds. United
States v. Tovar, 88 F.4th 720, 726 (7th Cir. 2023). In the meantime, the government sought
the forfeiture of the $38,916 in cash. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The district court later
granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that issue preclusion
applied because (in short) the source of the cash had been thoroughly litigated at
sentencing and during Tovar’s appeal.
On appeal, Tovar contends only that the cash was legitimate, non-drug-related
business proceeds. But to prevail in this court, Tovar needed to challenge the district
court’s explanation for why that contention, regardless of its merits, was barred by issue
preclusion. Essentially, he needed to argue that (1) the source of the seized cash was not
the same issue as that involved in his criminal sentencing or appeal, (2) the issue was
not “actually litigated,” (3) the determination of the issue was not essential to the final
judgment, or (4) he was not fully represented in the criminal case. See Waagner v. United
States, 971 F.3d 647, 657 (7th Cir. 2020) (listing elements of issue preclusion). He did not
do so. Although we liberally construe a pro se litigant’s arguments, an appellate brief
must still challenge the explanation provided in the district court’s order. See F ED. R.
A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). An
appellate brief like Tovar’s that “does not even try to engage the reasons the appellant
lost has no prospect of success,” Klein v. O’Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018)
(emphasis omitted), and must be dismissed, Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --