USA v. Salvador Navarro, No. 18-3313 (7th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted September 10, 2019* Decided September 12, 2019 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge No. 18-3313 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 11-CR-30046-NJR-3 Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Judge. v. SALVADOR GUADALUPE NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant. Order Earlier decisions have established that Salvador Guadalupe Navarro consented to a $9 million forfeiture judgment, collectable through substitute assets, and waived any opportunity to seek a revision. See, e.g., No. 17-2613 (7th This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 18-3313 Page 2 Cir. May 31, 2018) (nonprecedential decision). Nonetheless he continues to ask the judiciary to revisit this aspect of his sentence. The district judge declined to do so in this collection proceeding, and Navarro has appealed again. He must understand that the arguments he presents have been considered and rejected. Pointing to new judicial decisions does not undermine the fact that this award is based on his consent in the plea agreement, and that he also promised not to appeal or seek collateral review. The time to contest this matter came and went years ago. Future attempts to reopen this subject will subject Navarro to penalties for frivolous litigation. The district court’s decision that the forfeiture may be collected, in part, from funds available in Navarro’s prison trust account is not an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
