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