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
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
Read more
7 months ago
