IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DANIEL E. SALLEY,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 01 CR 750-1

Wayne R. Andersen

District Judge

 

MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on the motion of defendant Daniel Eric Salley for emergency

release pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). For the reasons stated below,

defendant’s motion for emergency release is denied. 

BACKGROUND

On or about February 9, 2006, a jury found Mr. Salley guilty of fifteen criminal counts. 

This conviction included two counts of attempted murder, six counts of use of a firearm during a

felony crime of violence, three counts of assault, one count of hostage taking, one count of

unlawful possession of a firearm subsequent to a misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery,

and two counts of bank robbery. Following his conviction, this Court sentenced Mr. Salley to

and uninterrupted term of life imprisonment plus one hundred thirty-two (132) years

imprisonment to run consecutively to the term of life imprisonment. The terms of Mr. Salley’s

incarceration are specified in an eight (8) page document issued by this Court, entitled

“Judgment in a Criminal Case” [#189] (“Judgment Form”).

Among other provisions, the Judgment Form stipulates that Mr. Salley’s costs of

incarceration are waived due to his inability to pay. Although Mr. Salley was not responsible for
2

the costs of his incarceration, other monetary penalties were imposed on Mr. Salley. Such

penalties include $3,493,182.30 in restitution and a $1,500 assessment. According to the

Judgment Form, payment of the criminal monetary penalties, which include the restitution and

the assessment, were due immediately and in full. 

Mr. Salley had been detained and held without bond prior to, during, and after his trial. 

Shortly after the sentencing, Mr. Salley was committed to the custody of the United States

Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his sentence. 

Mr. Salley has filed the instant motion for emergency release pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) claiming that the judgment has been discharged. Mr. Salley partially

bases his claim on information found in his Inmate Financial Responsibility report and his

Sentence Monitoring Computation report. Both of these documents are generated by the Bureau

of Prisons. Mr. Salley’s motion for emergency release is currently before this court. 

DISCUSSION

Although Mr. Salley’s motion is unclear and extremely difficult to decipher, he appears

to claim that because certain documents from the Bureau of Prisons indicate that Mr. Salley’s

financial obligations may have been waived due to his inability to pay, his complete judgment

and sentence issued by this Court have been fulfilled even though the term of life imprisonment

plus the consecutive 132 years have not yet been served. Thus, Mr. Salley believes that he is

entitled to immediate release from the Bureau of Prisons. 

After a thorough review of Mr. Salley’s motion and investigation of his claims, we find

that Mr. Salley’s motion is without merit. First, we note that Mr. Salley has inappropriately filed

this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), a rule which pertains to civil cases,

and is inapplicable to criminal cases. 
3

Moreover, it is clear from the motion, record and documents presented that Mr. Salley is

not entitled to release from the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Salley was tried and convicted on fifteen

criminal counts, for which he is serving a life sentence plus one hundred thirty-two years in

prison. The Judgment Form outlines his sentence and stipulates the amount of time served, how

much Mr. Salley owes in monetary penalties, and which financial obligations were waived. 

Pursuant to his sentence, Mr. Salley was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to

serve his time. 

Naturally, the Bureau of Prisons must maintain its own records to monitor and administer

an inmate’s sentence as handed down by a court. Attached to his motion is Mr. Salley’s Inmate

Financial Responsibility report as well as his Sentencing Monitoring report. These two reports

are created and maintained by the United States Bureau of Prisons. There is nothing in the

Bureau of Prison documents which indicate that Mr. Salley’s sentence has been discharged or

that no judgment exists against Mr. Salley, as alleged in his motion. Even if the documents

created by the Bureau of Prisons and produced by Mr. Salley contain language suggesting that

Mr. Salley’s judgment has been discharged or that no judgment exists against Mr. Salley, such

documentation produced by the Bureau of Prisons would not supersede Mr. Salley’s valid

sentence as handed down by this Court. Mr. Salley is to fulfill the sentence handed down by this

Court as described in the Judgment Form. Currently, Mr. Salley’s sentence has not been

discharged or released. Consequently, Mr. Salley’s motion for emergency release pursuant to

Rule 60(b)(5) is denied. 
4

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Salley’s motion for emergency release [# 191] is

denied. It is so ordered.

___________________________________

 Wayne R. Andersen

United States District Court

Dated: July 29, 2009