Projects like Rohan Saroha, Supreme Towers, and Sobha Nesara are strategically located to cater to IT professionals. Easy access to workplaces, metro connectivity, and social infrastructure make this area highly desirable.

https://www.punerealty.in/...

APPEAL,CLOSED

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD-1

Case title: USA v. Bello et al

Related Case:
4:24-cv-00435-ALM-BD

Date Filed: 06/15/2023

Date Terminated: 07/24/2025

Assigned to: Chief District Judge Amos L Mazzant
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Bill Davis

Appeals court case numbers: 24-40203 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 24-40751 5th Circuit, 24-40839 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 25-40073 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 25-40162 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 25-40725 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 25-40772 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Defendant (1)

Olamide Olatayo Bello
TERMINATED: 07/24/2025
represented by
Olamide Olatayo Bello
65100-510
FCI Seagoville
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, TX 75159
PRO SE

Bassey O Akpaffiong
Attorney at Law
14090 Southwest Freeway #300
Sugarland, TX 77478
713/245-6962
Fax: 866/365-1317
Email: akpaffionglawyahoo.com
TERMINATED: 08/04/2025
Designation: Retained

Douglas Hugh Schopmeyer
Office of the Federal Public Defender
600 East Taylor St.
Ste 4000
Sherman, TX 75090
903-892-4448
Fax: 903-892-4808
Email: douglas_schopmeyer@fd.org
TERMINATED: 07/07/2023
Designation: Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment

Frank Jackson
Attorney at Law
6060 N. Central Expressway
Suite 214
Dallas, TX 75206
(214) 871-1122
Fax: 12148800443
Email: txdefenseattorneygmail.com
TERMINATED: 09/08/2023
Designation: Retained

Heather M Fisher
Law Offices of Heather M. Fisher
1104 N. Locust St.
Denton, TX 76201
214-264-9676
Email: heathermydentonlawyer.com
TERMINATED: 09/08/2023
Designation: Retained

Mark L Watson
Mark Lawrence Watson Attorney at Law
5851 McCommas Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75206
214-912-8181
Email: markmwatson.com
TERMINATED: 04/23/2024
PRO HAC VICE
Designation: Retained

Michelle Allen-McCoy
Federal Defender's Office - Frisco
7460 Warran Parkway Suite 270
Frisco, TX 75034
469-362-8506
Fax: 469-362-6010
Email: Michelle_Allen-McCoy@fd.org
TERMINATED: 06/23/2023
Designation: Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment

Phillip A Linder
Barrett Bright Lassiter Linder Perez - Dallas
3300 Oak Lawn Ave
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
214/252-9900
Fax: 214-252-9902
Email: phillipthelinderfirm.com
TERMINATED: 01/29/2025
Designation: CJA Appointment

Pending Counts

Disposition
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) - Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
(2)

293 months as to Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment. The term consists of 240 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2 to run consecutively to Count 1, and the remaining 67 month of Count 2 to run concurrently with Count 1. Fine waived, restitution deferred for 90 days, interest waived, special assessment of $200 ($100 on each count)

Highest Offense Level (Opening)

Felony

Terminated Counts

Disposition
18 U.S.C. § 1349 -Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
(1s)

dismissed on government's motion

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

Felony

Complaints

Disposition
None

Plaintiff

USA
represented by
Sean Jeffrey Taylor
US Attorney's Office - Sherman
600 East Taylor, Suite 2000
Sherman, TX 75090
903-868-9454
Fax: 903-892-2792
Email: sean.taylorusdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US Attorney

Chalana Oliver
DOJ-USAO
101 East Park Blvd
Ste 500
Plano, TX 75074
469-838-0603
Email: chalana.oliverusdoj.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
#
Docket Text
06/15/2023
2
E-GOV SEALED Form AO 257 filed as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (daj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2023)
06/15/2023
24
REDACTED INDICTMENT as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. (daj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2023)
06/21/2023

Arrest of Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Dumbor Josephine Baribe (mmc) (Entered: 06/21/2023)
06/21/2023

NOTICE OF HEARING as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Dumbor Josephine Baribe: Initial Appearance set for 6/22/2023 09:30 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. (mmc) (Entered: 06/21/2023)
06/22/2023

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson: Initial Appearance and Arraignment as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1) Count 1 held on 6/22/2023 from 10:58 am - 11:22 am. (Hearing held jointly with co-defendants 3, 5 & 7) Govt does not move to detain. Dft Location: Release/Bond. Attorney Appearances: AUSA - Sean Taylor; Defense - Michelle Allen-McCoy. No exhibits (Court Reporter Digital Recording.) (knp, ) (Entered: 06/22/2023)
06/22/2023
36
E-GOV SEALED Arrest Warrant Returned Executed on 6/21/2023 in case as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. (rpc, ) (Entered: 06/22/2023)
06/22/2023
43
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Olamide Olatayo Bello (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/22/2023
44
ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 6/22/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/22/2023
45
ORDER pursuant to Rule 5(f)(1) as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 6/22/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/22/2023
46
E-GOV SEALED ORDER Setting Conditions of Release. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 6/22/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/22/2023
64
PRETRIAL ORDER as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Dumbor Josephine Baribe: Plea Agreement due by 4:00 PM on 7/14/2023. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/4/2023 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 6/22/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/22/2023
65
SCHEDULING ORDER - PRETRIAL DISCOVERY & INSPECTION as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Dumbor Josephine Baribe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 6/22/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
06/23/2023
57
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Douglas Hugh Schopmeyer appearing for Olamide Olatayo Bello (Schopmeyer, Douglas) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
07/05/2023
76
MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jackson, Frank) (Entered: 07/05/2023)
07/07/2023
81
ORDER Having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel (Dkt. 76 ), the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Frank Johnson and Heather Fisher are substituted as counsel for Defendant and Douglas Schopmeyer and the Office of the Federal Public Defender are removed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 7/7/2023. (psm) (Entered: 07/07/2023)
07/17/2023
91
ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice granting 87 and 90 as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Kehinde Sunday Itiola, Bright Nnamdi Uwadileke, Victor Chibuike Nweke, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Abdulhakeen Olayinka Salaudeen, Dumbor Josephine Baribe: This case is RESET for Pretrial Conference on January 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. as to all Defendant's before the Court. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/17/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2023)
07/17/2023
92
PRETRIAL ORDER as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Kehinde Sunday Itiola, Bright Nnamdi Uwadileke, Victor Chibuike Nweke, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Abdulhakeen Olayinka Salaudeen, Dumbor Josephine Baribe: Plea Agreement due by 4:00 PM on 12/15/2023. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/5/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/17/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2023)
08/16/2023

Arrest of Olamide Olatayo Bello (mmc) (Entered: 08/16/2023)
08/16/2023

NOTICE OF HEARING as to Olamide Olatayo Bello: Initial Appearance on Revocation of Pretrial Release set for 8/17/2023 09:30 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. (mmc) (Entered: 08/16/2023)
08/16/2023
127
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Heather M Fisher appearing for Olamide Olatayo Bello Co-Counsel (Fisher, Heather) (Entered: 08/16/2023)
08/17/2023

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson: Initial Appearance re Revocation of Pretrial Release as to Olamide Olatayo Bello held on 8/17/2023 from 10:31 am - 10:34 am. ( Preliminary/Detention Hearing set for 8/22/2023 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. Dft Location: Custody. Attorney Appearances: AUSA - Christopher Rapp; Defense - Frank Jackson. No exhibits(Court Reporter Digital Recording.) (knp, ) (Entered: 08/17/2023)
08/22/2023
133
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson: Detention Hearing as to Olamide Olatayo Bello held on 8/22/2023 from 10:47 am - 11:31 am. Witness called: Jason Rennie. Court finds Pretrial Release Violated and grants Government motion to detain. Pretrial Release Revoked. Dft Location: Custody. Attorney Appearances: AUSA - Sean Taylor; Defense - Frank Jackson. No exhibits (Court Reporter Digital Recording.) (knp, ) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/28/2023
138
E-GOV SEALED Arrest Warrant Returned Executed on 8/16/2023 in case as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/28/2023
139
OPINION and ORDER as to Olamide Olatayo Bello. Defendant shall remain DETAINED pending trial or other disposition of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 8/25/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
09/07/2023
140
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ATXEDC-9692765. (Watson, Mark) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/7/2023: # 1 Sealed Attachment) (nkl, ). (Entered: 09/07/2023)
09/07/2023
141
UNOPPOSED MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Watson, Mark) (Entered: 09/07/2023)
09/08/2023
142
ORDER granting 141 Motion to Substitute Attorney as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 9/8/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 09/08/2023)
11/27/2023
148
MOTION to Revoke Detention Order by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
11/28/2023
149
ORDER denying 148 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 11/28/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 11/28/2023)
11/30/2023
150
MOTION to Dismiss/Motion for Judgment of Acquittal by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Additional Attachment(s))(knp, ) (Entered: 12/01/2023)
11/30/2023
151
MOTION to Suppress by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 12/01/2023)
12/06/2023
152
NOTICE of Intent to Raise Issue Concerning Pro Se Motions by Olamide Olatayo Bello (knp, ) (Entered: 12/07/2023)
12/08/2023
157
***STRICKEN PER DKT 166 *** Pro Se MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) Modified text on 12/15/2023 (jmb, ). (Entered: 12/11/2023)
12/11/2023
156
ORDER REFERRING MOTION as to Olamide Olatayo Bello 151 MOTION to Suppress filed by Olamide Olatayo Bello is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge KimberlyPriest Johnson for consideration and a recommended disposition. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/11/2023. (dlw, ) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
12/11/2023
158
UNOPPOSED MOTION to Continue trial by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Watson, Mark) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
12/11/2023
163
Pro Se NOTICE of Intent to Raise an Issue Concerning the Violation of Speedy Trial Act and Due Process by Olamide Olatayo Bello (knp, ) (Entered: 12/13/2023)
12/11/2023
164
Pro Se RESPONSE in Opposition to Order of Detention and Pretrial Revocation by Olamide Olatayo Bello (knp, ) (Entered: 12/13/2023)
12/12/2023
159
ORDER denying 150 Motion for Acquittal as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/12/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
12/12/2023
160
ORDER denying 151 Motion to Suppress as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/12/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
12/12/2023
161
ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Olamide Olatayo Bello, Olabode Thomas Ajibola, Damola Yusuf Fasoroti, Kehinde Sunday Itiola, Bright Nnamdi Uwadileke, Victor Chibuike Nweke, Justice Nzube Ogueji, Nnaemeka Emmanuel Ogueji, Sabur Olawale Yusuff, Abdulhakeen Olayinka Salaudeen, Dumbor Josephine Baribe: Plea Agreement due by 4:00 PM on 4/12/2024. Pretrial Conference set for 5/3/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/12/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
12/13/2023
165
***STRICKEN PER DKT 167 *** Pro Se MOTION for Severance and Speedy Trial by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) Modified text on 12/15/2023 (jmb, ). (Entered: 12/13/2023)
12/14/2023

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION in case as to Olamide Olatayo Bello 157 MOTION for Bill of Particulars : Motion Hearing set for 1/3/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. (mmc) (Entered: 12/14/2023)
12/14/2023
169
***STRICKEN PER DKT 172 ***Pro Se MOTION to Strike Surplusage by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) Modified on 12/19/2023 (knp, ). (Entered: 12/15/2023)
12/15/2023
166
ORDER denying 157 Motion for Bill of Particulars as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/14/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023)
12/15/2023
167
ORDER denying 165 Motion to Severance and Speedy Trial Prejudicial Joinder of Defendant and Duplicity-Federal as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/14/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023)
12/15/2023

HEARING CANCELED: The hearing on 157 Motion for Bill of Particulars as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1) set for 1/3/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson is CANCELED. (jmb, ) Modified on 12/19/2023 (mmc). (Entered: 12/15/2023)
12/15/2023
170
***STRICKEN PER DKT 172 *** MOTION to Compel Discovery by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(baf, ) Modified on 12/19/2023 (knp, ). (Entered: 12/18/2023)
12/15/2023
171
***STRICKEN PER DKT 172 *** MOTION to Revoke Pre-Trial Release Detention Order and for Judgment of Acquittal - Violation of 18 U.S.C.S. 3148(6) and Procedural Defective by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(baf, ) Modified on 12/19/2023 (knp, ). (Entered: 12/18/2023)
12/19/2023
172
ORDER denying 169 Motion to Strike as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 170 Motion to Compel as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 171 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/19/2023. (knp, ) (Entered: 12/19/2023)
12/26/2023
173
Pro Se Proposed Jury Instructions by Olamide Olatayo Bello (knp, ) (Entered: 12/27/2023)
12/28/2023
174
Pro Se MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF THE EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS AND REASON(S) by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 12/28/2023)
01/18/2024

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION in case as to Olamide Olatayo Bello 174 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 1/24/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. (mmc) Modified text on 1/19/2024 (mmc). (Entered: 01/18/2024)
01/19/2024

NOTICE RESETTING HEARING ON MOTION in case as to Olamide Olatayo Bello 174 MOTION to Compel (only as to portion of motion claiming 'ineffective counsel.") : Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2024 at 10:00 AM in Ctrm 108 (Plano) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson. (mmc) (Entered: 01/19/2024)
01/26/2024
182
Pro Se Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Additional Attachment(s), # 2 Envelope)(knp, ) (Main Document 182 replaced on 1/26/2024) (knp, ). (Entered: 01/26/2024)
01/29/2024

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson: 174 Motion Hearing (only as to portion of motion claiming 'ineffective counsel.") as to Olamide Olatayo Bello held on 1/29/2024 from 11:00 - 11:10 am. Court admonished dft regarding the numerous pro se motions filed, reminding dft that he has retained counsel. Dft Location: Custody. Attorney Appearances: AUSA - Sean Taylor; Defense - Mark Watson. No exhibits (Court Reporter Digital Recording.) (knp, ) (Entered: 01/29/2024)
02/09/2024
185
Pro Se MOTION to Dismiss Counsel by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/09/2024
186
Pro Se MOTION Requesting Affidavit of Search Warrant by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/09/2024
187
Pro Se MOTION to Reconsider or Reopen a Detention Hearing by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (knp, ) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/12/2024
188
Pro Se MOTION to Compel Discovery of Exculpatory Evidence by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
189
Pro Se MOTION for Access to The Grand Jury Minutes and Testimony by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
190
Pro Se MOTION for Notice of Government's Intent to Use by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
191
Pro Se MOTION to Compel Immunity by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
192
Pro Se MOTION to Compel On-Site Inspection by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
193
Pro Se MOTION to Reconsider Suppression of Evidence by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
194
Pro Se MOTION to Revoke Pre-Trial Detention Order by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/12/2024
195
Pro Se MOTION to Strike Surplusage by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
02/14/2024
196
ORDER denying 174 Motion to Compel as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 182 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 185 Motion to Dismiss as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 186 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 187 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 188 Motion to Compel as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 189 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 190 Motion as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 191 Motion to Compel as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 192 Motion to Compel as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1); denying 193 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Olamide Olatayo Bello; denying 194 MOTION to Revoke Pre-Trial Detention Order filed by Olamide Olatayo Bello; denying 195 Motion to Strike as to Olamide Olatayo Bello (1). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/14/2024. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/14/2024)
02/14/2024
197
***STRICKEN PER DKT 211 *** Pro Se MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (Attachments: # 1 Additional Attachment(s))(jmb, ) Modified on 3/28/2024 (JMB). (Entered: 02/16/2024)
02/14/2024
198
Pro Se MOTION for Court Appointed Counsel by Olamide Olatayo Bello. (jmb, ) (Entered: 02/16/2024)
03/04/2024
199
Pro Se NOTICE of Appeal by Olamide Olatayo Bello re 196 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Strike, (knp, ) (Entered: 03/06/2024)
03/11/2024
201
Pro Se NOTICE of Appeal of Detention Order and Violation of Speedy Trial Act by Olamide Olatayo Bello (Attachments: # 1 Additional Attachment(s) Lette

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY LETTER
Case No. 25-40731
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Olamide Olatayo Bello, Appellant
v.
United States of America, Appellee

Rule 28(j) Letter of Supplemental Authority
Honorable Clerk:
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), Appellant respectfully submits supplemental authority and record material directly relevant to the jurisdictional issues raised in this appeal and in Appellant’s pending Motion for Bail Pending Appeal.

I. Newly Identified Record Defect: Two Different Indictments Filed in the District Court
Appellant has reviewed the certified district court record and identified a structural constitutional defect affecting this Court’s jurisdiction.
The record reflects two materially different versions of the indictment filed in Case No. 4:23-cr-00136:
1. Document 1 – Indictment filed June 15, 2023
A complete indictment listing all eleven defendants, full factual allegations, and a properly formatted charging instrument.

2. Document 24 – Separate “Indictment” also dated June 15, 2023
This version contains:
Missing or blank defendant names;
Altered or incomplete paragraphs;
Materially different wording;
Inconsistent formatting;
Omitted portions of the charging language.

Both documents purport to be the indictment returned on June 15, 2023, yet they differ substantially. The record does not establish which document was actually voted on by the grand jury, which one was returned in open court, or which one Appellant was arraigned on, as required by the Fifth Amendment and Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 & 10.

II. Structural Constitutional Error Requiring Automatic Reversal
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held:
A defendant cannot be tried on an indictment not returned by the grand jury. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960).
Any alteration, variance, or uncertainty as to the actual grand-jury-approved indictment is a structural error requiring automatic reversal. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962).
Jurisdiction depends on the existence of one valid indictment. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002).
Where the record contains two conflicting indictments, the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because it is impossible to determine the charging instrument on which the prosecution and trial proceeded. Such an error is not subject to harmless-error analysis.

III. Direct Relevance to the Pending Appeal and Appellant’s Bail Motion
This defect affects:
Subject-matter jurisdiction of the district court;
Validity of the conviction and judgment;
Likelihood of reversal for purposes of bail pending appeal;
The propriety of a limited remand for clarification of the indictment actually returned.
Because the existence of two indictments raises a substantial question likely to result in reversal or vacatur, Appellant respectfully submits that the Court should consider this defect in evaluating the merits of this appeal and the pending bail motion.

IV. Relief Requested
Appellant respectfully requests that the Court:
Take notice of this structural defect;
Consider it in resolving the pending appeal and bail motion;
Alternatively, issue a limited remand directing the district court to identify the indictment actually returned by the grand jury and used for arraignment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510
FCI Seagoville
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, TX 75159
Pro Se Appellant
Date: December 5th, 2025

OnNOTICE OF REFILING OF PRO SE MOTIONS UNDER FIFTH CIRCUIT GUIDANCE (25-40432)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS — SHERMAN DIVISION
United States of America
v.
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Case No. 4:23-cr-136-ALM-1

NOTICE OF REFILING UNDER FIFTH CIRCUIT GUIDANCE
COMES NOW Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, appearing pro se, and submits this Notice of Refiling pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s Order issued September 30, 2025, in Case No. 25-40432, explicitly authorizing the refiling of motions previously returned by the Clerk pursuant to the Court’s March 25, 2025 order restricting pro se filings.

I. Procedural Background — Returned Filings
During June and July 2025, Defendant submitted multiple pro se motions that were never docketed because the Clerk returned them with a copy of the Court’s March 25, 2025 order.
The Fifth Circuit expressly acknowledged this barrier:
“Bello alleges that he attempted to file several pro se motions in June and July 2025, but the clerk returned them with a copy of the March 25 order restricting pro se filings.”
— In re Bello, No. 25-40432, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2025).

II. Fifth Circuit Authority Confirming Defendant May Refile
The Fifth Circuit held that:
Counsel withdrew on August 4, 2025;
Defendant proceeds pro se thereafter;
The Clerk is no longer returning filings; and
Defendant “may refile the motions that were previously returned.”
Accordingly, this Notice formally invokes that authorization.

III. Motions Being Refiled Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Direction
The following motions—submitted in good faith during June–July 2025 and returned without docketing—are hereby refiled:
Motion to Arrest Judgment (Fed. R. Crim. P. 34)
Motion to Vacate or Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Arraignment
Rule 60(b)(4) Motion to Declare Judgment Void
Motion to Reopen Returned Motions / Restore Access to Court
Motion to Compel Complete Record and Transcripts
Motion for Judicial Notice of Fifth Circuit Orders and Docket Irregularities
Motion for Release Pending Appeal (18 U.S.C. § 3143(b))
Each motion is refiled concurrently with this Notice.

IV. Relief Requested
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:
Accept and docket each refiled motion;
Recognize the prior procedural impediment identified by the Fifth Circuit;
Consider nunc pro tunc treatment where appropriate to preserve rights;
Rule on each motion individually; and
Restore full access to the Court consistent with Fifth Circuit guidance.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510
FCI Seagoville
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas 75159
Pro Se Defendant
Dated: December 5, 2025

Certificate of Service
I certify that on December 5, 2025, I placed a true and correct copy of this filing in the U.S. mail system addressed to the Clerk of Court, and I respectfully request that a copy be served on all parties to this proceeding via the Court’s ECF/CM system.
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510

⭐ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
(With Policy Arguments + Judicial Quotations + Structural Error Doctrine)
Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, appearing pro se, submits this Preliminary Statement to demonstrate that this case is marked by jurisdictional voidness, structural breakdown, constitutional violations, and record unreliability at every stage of the proceeding. These defects are not technical irregularities—they are the kinds of constitutional failures that “strike at the fundamental fairness of the trial itself.” Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 295 (2017).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that when the basic structural protections of the criminal justice system fail, the resulting conviction cannot stand:
“Some constitutional errors… infect the entire trial process and necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair.”
— Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986).
This case contains multiple independent structural defects, including:
A trial conducted while the district court lacked jurisdiction due to multiple pending interlocutory appeals;
The complete absence of a valid arraignment on any operative indictment;
An indictment structure that is self-contradictory and legally incoherent;
Missing, incomplete, or indiscernible transcripts impairing appellate review;
A written judgment that conflicts with the oral sentence; and
Confirmed obstruction of Defendant’s right to file motions, acknowledged by the Fifth Circuit itself.
Each of these defects alone warrants vacatur. Together, they place the judgment among the clearest examples of structural error recognized in federal jurisprudence.

I. Trial and Sentencing Occurred Without Jurisdiction (Divestiture Doctrine)
Defendant filed multiple interlocutory appeals—25-40043, 25-40162, 25-40177, 25-40731, and 25-40432—divesting this Court of jurisdiction under binding Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent.
In Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), the Supreme Court held:
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance… it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control.”
The Fifth Circuit reinforces this rule in:
United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 692 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc)
United States v. Ueckert, 38 F.4th 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2022)
United States v. Pena, 713 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1983)
Jurisdiction was not restored because:
No Fifth Circuit order permitted the district court to proceed;
No mandate was issued;
The appeals were not frivolous; and
The appeals directly challenged pretrial orders.
As the Fifth Circuit has stated:
“Actions taken without jurisdiction are a nullity.”
— United States v. Lopez, 979 F.3d 653, 658 (5th Cir. 2020).
Thus, every action taken during the divestiture period—including trial, verdict, and sentencing—is void, not merely voidable.

II. No Valid Arraignment Occurred on Any Operative Indictment
Rule 10 sets forth the mandatory steps for arraignment. These requirements are jurisdictional and cannot be skipped.
Yet the record shows:
No transcript of arraignment exists;
No plea was ever entered;
No arraignment occurred on Dkt. 37 (Superseding Indictment);
Dkt. 519 references a “Fifth Superseding Indictment” that does not exist.
The Supreme Court has made clear:
“A court lacks jurisdiction to impose punishment for an offense not charged in an indictment.”
— Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 13 (1887).
And:
“A trial without proper arraignment is fundamentally defective.”
— Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 645 (1914).
The absence of arraignment is a critical-stage violation and constitutes structural error, requiring automatic reversal. See United States v. Young, 140 F.3d 453, 455 (5th Cir. 1998).

III. The Indictment Itself Is Contradictory and Unreliable
The indictment framework in this case is unprecedented:
Original Indictment (Dkt. 1)
Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 37)
Reference to a “fifth superseding indictment” (Dkt. 519) that does not exist
This violates the Grand Jury Clause and the fundamental requirement of notice.
As the Supreme Court held in Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 217 (1960):
“A conviction cannot stand on an indictment not returned by the grand jury.”
The Fifth Circuit likewise holds:
“Ambiguity or uncertainty in the indictment deprives the defendant of fair notice.”
— United States v. Hoover, 467 F.3d 496, 500 (5th Cir. 2006).
A trial cannot proceed—and a conviction cannot be sustained—on an indictment structure that lacks coherence, continuity, and constitutional validity.

IV. Missing and Indiscernible Transcripts Prevent Appellate Review
A federal criminal defendant is entitled to a complete transcript of all proceedings.
In Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 280 (1964), the Supreme Court held:
“Enough of the record must be supplied to permit proper consideration of the claims advanced.”
The Fifth Circuit is stricter:
“Where significant portions of the transcript are missing and cannot be reconstructed, reversal is required.”
— United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1977).
Here, essential transcripts—including multiple hearings and trial testimony—are:
missing,
incomplete, or
marked “indiscernible.”
This alone requires reversal.

V. The Written Judgment Conflicts With the Oral Sentence
The en banc Fifth Circuit clarified in United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020):
“If a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Yet Dkts. 829 and 842 include conditions never announced in open court.
This is reversible error and renders the written judgment invalid.

VI. Confirmed Return of Defendant’s Filings Violated Access to Courts
In Case No. 25-40432, the Fifth Circuit confirmed:
“The clerk returned Bello’s filings…”
This prevented Defendant from raising:
jurisdictional challenges,
structural defect objections,
Rule 60(b)(4) arguments, and
motions essential to preserving appellate rights.
The Supreme Court has long held:
“The right of access to the courts is founded in the Due Process Clause.”
— Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974).
And:
“Interference with legal filings violates core constitutional protections.”
— Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977).
Thus, the return of filings constitutes structural denial of access.

VII. Taken Together, These Defects Render the Judgment Void
A judgment is void when:
the court lacks jurisdiction (Griggs),
due process is denied (Espinosa),
there is no valid indictment (Bain), or
critical-stage procedures are absent (Garland).
This case contains all four categories simultaneously.
The Supreme Court has made this clear:
“A void judgment is a legal nullity.”
— United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010).

✅ MOTION #1 - MOTION TO REOPEN ALL RETURNED FILINGS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, appearing pro se, respectfully moves the Court to reopen and accept for filing all motions that were returned by the Clerk of Court in June–July 2025, as confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Case No. 25-40432.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 30, 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued a written order acknowledging that Defendant attempted to file numerous motions in June and July 2025, but the Clerk returned them pursuant to a prior restriction on pro se filings. The Court of Appeals further held:
“Because Bello is now proceeding pro se and the district court clerk is no longer returning his filings, he may refile the motions that were previously returned.”
This motion seeks to formally reopen all such filings, restore their original filing dates for all legal purposes, and direct the Clerk to docket them nunc pro tunc.
II. FIFTH CIRCUIT CONFIRMATION OF RETURNED FILINGS
In No. 25-40432, the Fifth Circuit stated:
“Bello alleges that he attempted to file several pro se motions in June and July 2025, but the clerk returned them with a copy of the March 25 order restricting pro se filings.”
This is a direct judicial finding of a procedural obstruction that prevented access to court.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS
First Amendment: right to petition the courts.
Fifth Amendment: due process right of access.
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977).
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
Denying filings at a critical pretrial and trial stage is structural error.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant requests an order:
Reopening all filings attempted in June–July 2025.
Directing the Clerk to docket them nunc pro tunc to their original dates.
Accepting all refiled motions pursuant to the Fifth Circuit mandate.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510
FCI Seagoville

✅ MOTION #2 - MOTION TO ARREST JUDGMENT
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(a)(1)-(2)
(Structural Jurisdictional Defects – Indictment, Arraignment, Divestiture)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS — SHERMAN DIVISION
United States of America
v.
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Case No. 4:23-cr-136-ALM-1

**MOTION TO ARREST JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 34(a)**
(Defective Indictment, Lack of Arraignment, Loss of Jurisdiction Due to Pending Appeals)
COMES NOW Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, pro se, and respectfully moves this Court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34(a) to arrest the judgment entered on July 24, 2025, because:
The indictment fails to charge an offense,
The Court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant at trial, and
Multiple structural constitutional violations render the judgment void ab initio.
Rule 34 requires arrest of judgment where:
“…the indictment or information does not charge an offense or the court does not have jurisdiction of the charged offense.”
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(a)(1)-(2)
These defects are not waivable, and an invalid judgment must be vacated.

I. THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE, AND THE RECORD CONTAINS MULTIPLE CONFLICTING INDICTMENTS
(Structural Defect – No Valid Charging Instrument)
The docket and trial record reveal:
A. Conflicting indictments exist
The docket shows:
An Original Indictment (Dkt. 1) filed June 15, 2023
A document labeled “First Superseding Indictment (1s)”
But no clear record of grand jury presentation
No adoption or incorporation in open court
No arraignment on the superseding version
No superseding indictment physically served on Defendant
Further, a waiver in the record references a “fifth superseding indictment”, even though no such indictment exists anywhere in the docket.
This creates an irreconcilable contradiction in the case file.
B. A defendant cannot be tried on an indictment not returned by the grand jury
A fundamental rule:
“A conviction cannot stand where a defendant is tried on an indictment that was never returned by the grand jury.”
— Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960)
C. No indictment in the record contains the elements of the offense as required
The Fifth Circuit requires that an indictment:
State all essential elements
Track the statutory language
Provide sufficient notice
(United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004))
The mismatches and contradictions in your case render this requirement unmet.

II. THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER ARRAIGNED ON THE OPERATIVE INDICTMENT
(Structural Error – Automatic Reversal)
The record (Exhibits A & B) shows:
The only arraignment reflected is a mass/group proceeding on 6/22/23.
There is no individual arraignment.
There is no arraignment on the indictment used at trial.
The docket contains no Rule 10(b) waiver for the operative indictment.
Failure to arraign is structural error requiring reversal without harmless-error analysis:
“Arraignment is a critical stage… its complete denial is structural error.”
— United States v. Coffin, 76 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 1996)
“A defendant may not be tried unless arraigned.”
— Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914)
No arraignment = no jurisdiction to try the defendant.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT WAS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING DUE TO PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
(Ueckert / Hitchmon Divestiture Rule)
You filed multiple interlocutory appeals, including from:
Pretrial motions
Denials of suppression
Jurisdictional challenges
Motions to dismiss
Under the Fifth Circuit’s strict divestiture doctrine:
A. A district court loses jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of jurisdiction.”
— Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)
B. The Fifth Circuit enforces divestiture strictly in criminal cases
“A district court may not proceed to trial while an interlocutory appeal is pending.”
— United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1979)
“Jurisdiction is divested unless this Court expressly retains it.”
— Ueckert v. Guerra, 38 F.4th 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2022)
The district court proceeded to trial despite multiple active appeals, which is a jurisdictional nullity.
A trial without jurisdiction produces a void judgment.

IV. RETURNED FILINGS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF ACCESS TO COURT DURING CRITICAL STAGES
(Documented by the Fifth Circuit itself)
The Fifth Circuit confirmed:
Your motions were returned (June–July 2025)
The restriction blocked your ability to raise these issues
You may now refile
This is a due process violation under Bounds v. Smith and Lewis v. Casey.
The remedy for such defects is vacatur.

V. A VOID JUDGMENT MUST BE ARRESTED UNDER RULE 34
A judgment is void where:
The court lacked jurisdiction,
The indictment is defective, or
Fundamental constitutional requirements were not followed.
Your case features all three.

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant respectfully moves this Court to:
Arrest the judgment entered July 24, 2025;
Vacate the conviction in full;
Dismiss the defective indictment(s);
Or, alternatively, set the matter for a jurisdictional hearing.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510
FCI Seagoville
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas 75159
Pro Se Defendant
Dated: December 5, 2025

Certificate of Service
I certify that on December 5, 2025, I placed a true and correct copy of this filing in the U.S. mail system addressed to the Clerk of Court, and I respectfully request that a copy be served on all parties to this proceeding via the Court’s ECF/CM system.
/s/ Olamide Olatayo Bello
Reg. No. 65100-510

✅ MOTION #3 - MOTION TO VACATE OR DISMISS INDICTMENT
FOR FAILURE TO ARRAIGN (STRUCTURAL ERROR)**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS — SHERMAN DIVISION
United States of America
v.
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Case No. 4:23-cr-136-ALM-1

**MOTION TO VACATE OR DISMISS INDICTMENT
FOR FAILURE TO ARRAIGN ON THE OPERATIVE INDICTMENT**
COMES NOW Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, pro se, and respectfully moves this Court to vacate the judgment, or alternatively dismiss the indictment, because the record unequivocally establishes that Defendant was never arraigned on the indictment used at trial.
Failure to arraign is structural, jurisdictional error that invalidates all subsequent proceedings, including trial and sentencing.
See Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914).

I. NO ARRAIGNMENT APPEARS IN THE RECORD FOR THE OPERATIVE INDICTMENT
(Record exhibits confirm absence of Rule 10 compliance)
The docket (Exhibit A) reflects:
A group/mass arraignment minute entry on June 22, 2023
No transcription
No individualized Rule 10(b) colloquy
No verification that Defendant was advised of rights
No reading or waiver of the superseding indictment
No arraignment after the “1s” superseding indictment
No Rule 10(b) written waiver as required
No record that Defendant ever entered a plea to the superseding indictment
The Fifth Circuit requires:
“A defendant must be arraigned on the indictment on which he is tried.”
— United States v. Moore, 37 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 1994)
This never occurred.

II. DEFENDANT WAS TRIED ON AN INDICTMENT THAT WAS NEVER READ, EXPLAINED, OR WAIVED UNDER RULE 10
Rule 10 requires:
Reading of the indictment
Ensuring the defendant understands the charges
Entry of a plea
None of these occurred.
The record is devoid of:
A reading of the superseding indictment
A plea entered to the operative indictment
A waiver of reading
A transcript documenting that Defendant acknowledged charges
Thus, trial proceeded without a valid plea, violating:
Rule 10
The Fifth Amendment
Due process
The structural requirements for jurisdiction

III. WAIVER DOCUMENTS REFER TO A NONEXIST

What happens when federal courts can make up their own records? A Texas case shows judges convicting someone without proper arraignment, using phantom documents that don't exist, and writing judgments with impossible future dates. This isn't about one person - it's about whether any of us can trust our justice system when courts can literally invent what happened.
I keep thinking about how this could happen to anyone. The case files show two different indictments with no explanation of which one applied, a waiver document referencing charges that were never filed, and a judgment claiming events occurred that have no record anywhere. If courts can fabricate procedures after the fact, none of our rights mean anything.

This petition is asking federal oversight bodies to explain these documented irregularities and restore basic record-keeping standards. Has anyone else noticed how quiet this story has been despite the serious implications? What would you want people to do if this level of confusion happened in your family's case?

https://c.org/yGXdVJgxHj

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-40772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
MR. OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO,
Appellant (pro se)

MASTER CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY FILING
Emergency Motion to Vacate Void Amended Judgment
with En Banc Request & Limited Remand
Filed: December 2, 2025

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Supreme Court
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)
Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996)
Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277 (1964)
United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)
Fifth Circuit / Other Federal Appellate
United States v. Hitchmon, 587 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Douglass, 476 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2007)
United States v. Chandler, 388 F.3d 796 (11th Cir. 2004) (rim requirement)
Statutes / Rules
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1294
18 U.S.C. § 3664
Fed. R. App. P. 10–11

EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE VOID AMENDED JUDGMENT
(En Banc Request and Limited Remand incorporated)
INTRODUCTION
This filing challenges a void Amended Judgment entered without service, without a hearing, without findings, and while appeals were pending. The docket itself proves: revocation began via Pretrial Services activity (not by AUSA motion); restitution was only “deferred” on the original judgment; no docketed restitution hearing or findings exist; record access was later denied; and a judge’s on-the-record admission that “the prosecution was wrong” was never cured before sentencing. The Amended Judgment is therefore void and must be vacated.
(See Exhibit A & Exhibit B.)

ISSUES PRESENTED
Divestiture: Did the district court lack jurisdiction once appeals were filed?
Service: Is a judgment void where a pro se prisoner was never served?
Restitution: Must restitution be preceded by notice, hearing, and findings?
Record conflict: Is a judgment void if it conflicts with the docket?
Appellate access: Does denying record access obstruct appeal?
Indictment: Can punishment rest on a non-existent superseding indictment?
Conspiracy: Is hub-and-spoke without a rim legally insufficient?
Structural error: Does denial of tools equal denial of counsel?
Judicial admission: Can sentencing follow an un-cured finding of legal failure?

STATEMENT OF FACTS (FROM THE DOCKET)
Revocation. The docket set “Initial Appearance on Revocation of Pretrial Release” without any contemporaneous Government motion; the PSR confirms arrest on a revocation warrant and detention days later.
Sentencing & Judgment. Sentencing occurred April 30, 2025 with Judgment entered that day. The docket reflects restitution was deferred.
Amended Judgment. Months later, an Amended Judgment imposed restitution and conditions not preceded by any docketed hearing or findings.
Record Access. On November 5, 2025 the court ordered one certified mailing and denied further requests for documents.
Appeals Pending. The docket header lists multiple Fifth Circuit appeals pending when the Amended Judgment issued.
(See Exhibit A for sworn summary; see Exhibit B for direct docket references.)

ARGUMENT
I. DIVESTITURE OF JURISDICTION
Law: Filing a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction.
Griggs; Berman; Hitchmon.
Application: Appeals were pending; the Amended Judgment is void.
II. NO SERVICE = NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Law: Orders entered without notice are void. Peralta; Mullane.
Facts: Mr. Olamide Olatayo Bello was PRO SE and never served.
Relief: Vacatur.
III. UNLAWFUL RESTITUTION
Law: Restitution requires notice, hearing, and findings. Olis; Sharma; 18 U.S.C. § 3664.
Facts: No docketed hearing or findings exist.
Relief: Strike restitution; vacate or remand only if necessary.
IV. JUDGMENT–DOCKET CONFLICT
Law: A written judgment conflicting with the record is invalid. Martinez.
Facts: Amended Judgment adds conditions unsupported by the docket.
Relief: Vacatur.
V. DENIAL OF RECORD ACCESS
Law: Indigents are entitled to an adequate record. Griffin; Hardy; FRAP 10–11.
Facts: Further access was denied after one mailing.
Relief: Order full record production.
VI. INDICTMENT DEFECT
Law: A conviction cannot rest on a charging instrument that does not exist. Stirone; Douglass.
Facts: The docket shows dismissal of Count 1s and no later superseder.
Relief: Vacate affected convictions/sentencing.
VII. HUB-AND-SPOKE WITHOUT A RIM
Law: No rim, no single conspiracy. Kotteakos; Chandler.
Facts: PSI describes a hub (platform) but no inter-spoke agreement.
Relief: Vacate conspiracy findings or remand.
VIII. MERGER / DOUBLE-COUNTING
Law: Same conduct cannot be cumulatively punished. Rutledge.
Relief: Correct sentencing.
IX. JUDICIAL ADMISSION
Law: A court may not acknowledge failure of proof and then sentence without cure. Jackson; Munoz-Flores.
Facts: The court stated “the prosecution was wrong.”
Relief: Vacatur or remand with findings.
X. STRUCTURAL DENIAL OF COUNSEL
Law: Denial of basic tools equals denial of counsel. Cronic.
Relief: Automatic reversal or vacatur.

RELIEF REQUESTED
VACATE the Amended Judgment.
STRIKE restitution.
ORDER immediate record production.
LIMITED REMAND only if required for lawful hearing/findings.
RELEASE or STAY pending disposition.

EN BANC REQUEST
Exceptional issues: jurisdictional nullity; ex parte sentencing; fraud on the court; indictment invalidity; denial of appellate record; structural error; conspiracy and merger.

LIMITED REMAND (ALTERNATIVE)
Remand solely to effect lawful service, conduct a hearing, enter findings, and furnish the complete record.

EXHIBIT A — DECLARATION (28 U.S.C. § 1746)
I, Mr. Olamide Olatayo Bello, declare:
Criminal case number 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD (E.D. Tex.).
The docket set initial appearance on revocation without a Government motion.
PSR: 08/16/2023 arrest on revocation warrant; 08/22/2023 detention.
Sentencing and Judgment: April 30, 2025.
An Amended Judgment later differed from the original.
No restitution hearing or findings appear on the docket.
On 11/05/2025 the court mailed one certified copy and denied further requests.
Multiple Fifth Circuit appeals were pending when the Amended Judgment issued.
I was PRO SE and never served.
On 01/15/2025 the court stated, “the prosecution was wrong,” then sentenced anyway.
Executed December 2, 2025.
/s/ Mr. Olamide Olatayo Bello

EXHIBIT B — DOCKET SHEET (DIRECT REFERENCES)
Attach the cited docket pages behind each tab.
B-1 Appeals Pending (Divestiture): docket header showing appellate case numbers.
B-2 PRO SE / Counsel Withdrawals: entries terminating counsel / designating PRO SE.
B-3 Original Judgment: line stating “restitution deferred.”
B-4 No Restitution Hearing: post-judgment pages showing no hearing or findings.
B-5 Amended Judgment Conflict: Amended Judgment page vs. docket timeline.
B-6 Indictment History: dismissal of Count 1s; no later superseder.
B-7 Record Denial: 11/05/2025 order denying further requests.
B-8 Revocation Source: “Initial Appearance on Revocation” entry (no AUSA motion).
B-9 PSI Hub-and-Spoke: PSI excerpts showing hub only.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify service by institutional mail and/or email to pro_seca5.uscourts.gov on December 2, 2025.
/s/ Mr. Olamide Olatayo Bello

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-40772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,

v.

MR. OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO,
Appellant (pro se)

MASTER CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY FILING
Filed: December 2, 2025

EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE VOID AMENDED JUDGMENT
WITH EN BANC REQUEST AND LIMITED REMAND

INTRODUCTION
This filing challenges a void Amended Judgment entered without service, without hearing,
without findings, and during multiple pending appeals. The district court added restitution
and conditions unsupported by the docket. The docket itself proves these defe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-40772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO,
Appellant (Pro Se)

EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE VOID AMENDED JUDGMENT
(OPTIMIZED FOR EFFECTIVE RELIEF)
Filed: December 2, 2025

INTRODUCTION
This is an emergency because the district court entered an Amended Judgment (Dkt. 829) that is void.
The court acted:
• on an unserved government motion,
• on a motion that falsely claimed “accord,”
• without hearing or findings, and
• while jurisdiction had already transferred to this Court.
The errors

Saving Justice
When President Trump was indicted prosecuted the whole word follows the justice system.
I am so glad that he won the election and fight the truth. I was in prison for what I did not do and I felt his pain and fight.
I still could not believe that despite the issues and examples from President Trump's legal battle, the Fifth circle still allow the following extra ordinary circumstances and judicial failure

I. ORIGIN OF THE CASE-CRIM 4:23-CR-136-1 COA5 25-40043
June 15, 2023 — Original Indictment
The United States commenced prosecution by filing the Original Indictment (D

Line of Credit for Small Businesses: Types and Their Practical Advantages

A line of credit allows a small business to access funds, repay them, and reuse the credit. It is a helpful source for all small business.

For complete information, visit our blog
https://www.invoicetemple....

#inventory management software #online accounting software #unpaid invoice #small business