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
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
Read more
7 months ago
