Appellee United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal — No. 4:23-cr-136-1 (5th Cir. No. 24-40839, Dkt. 57)

Summary

In this motion filed 08/07/2025 in Fifth Circuit No. 24-40839, the United States asks the court to dismiss interlocutory appeals by Olamide Olatayo Bello, who is proceeding pro se. The motion says Bello filed five interlocutory appeals from the Eastern District of Texas criminal case, No. 4:23-cr-136-1, and that four remain pending. A jury found Bello guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering after a trial from January 13-16, 2025, and on July 24, 2025 the district court imposed a total prison sentence of 293 months. Bello's August 5, 2025 notice of appeal from the final judgment was entered in Appeal No. 25-40043, and the government asks the court to dismiss Nos. 24-40839, 25-40073, and 25-40162 so that all claims are pressed in one brief there. Assistant United States Attorney Bradley Visosky signed the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

No. 24-40839
_____________________

In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
Sherman Division
No. 4:23-cr-136-1

APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
INTRODUCTION

By statute and settled practice, this Court (with some exceptions not

applicable here) has jurisdiction only over final orders and judgments. A

defendant in a criminal case must wait to file an appeal of the final

1
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

judgment. All interlocutory orders merge into the judgment and remain

reviewable.

Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello, proceeding pro se, has flouted

those rules. He’s filed serial notices of appeal challenging the district
court’s rulings in his criminal case as they have come down. The result is

piecemeal litigation run amok: there have been five interlocutory appeals

related to the same underlying criminal case filed in this Court, four of

which remain pending. See Appeal Nos. 24-40751 (dismissed), 24-40839,

25-40043, 25-40073, and 25-40162. Only recently, on July 24, 2025, the

district court sentenced Bello and entered final judgment. On August 5,
2025, Bello filed a notice of appeal of the judgment. This time, rather than

opening another (sixth) appeal, the Clerk of this Court filed that notice of

appeal in Appeal No. 25-40043.

The Court should dismiss Appeal Nos. 24-40839, 25-40073, and 25-

40162, all of which involve challenges to interlocutory orders of the district

court. Because the Clerk has added Bello’s notice of appeal of the final

judgment to Appeal No. 25-40043, the Court should allow that appeal to

proceed, with Bello to file one brief in which he will be able to press all of

his claims related to his criminal case.

2
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

BACKGROUND

A. Basic facts about the criminal case

A grand jury indicted Bello and 10 others on charges of conspiracy

to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (count one), and conspiracy to
commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (count two). Bello was

tried from January 13-16, 2025. The jury found him guilty as charged on

both counts. On July 24, 2025, the district court sentenced Bello to serve

240 months’ imprisonment on count one and 120 months on count two.

EDTX No. 4:23-CR-136-1, Dkt. No. 724. The court ordered that 53 months

on count two run consecutively to count one, with the remaining 67
months on count two to run concurrently with count one. Id. This resulted

in a total prison sentence of 293 months. Id. The court entered a judgment

of conviction on July 24, 2025. Id.

B. The interlocutory appeals

Bello filed at least five separate notices of appeal designating various

interlocutory orders as the orders appealed from. These notices spawned

the following five appeals in this Court:

1. U.S. v. Bello, No. 24-40751

• Order(s) appealed from: Order denying Bello’s motions to
dismiss the first superseding indictment

3
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

• Appeal status: On April 8, 2025, this Court granted the
government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

2. U.S. v. Bello, No. 24-40839

• Order(s) appealed from: The notice of appeal designates at
least 26 orders (mostly oral orders) of the district court
denying various pretrial motions Bellow had filed, including
multiple motions to dismiss the indictment, for a bill of
particulars, for severance, etc.

• Appeal status: On July 22, 2025, Bello filed an 89-page
appellant’s brief (Dkt. No. 55). On July 29, 2025, the Clerk
denied Bello’s motion to file a brief in excess of the page limit
(Dkt. No. 54).

3. U.S. v. Bello, No. 25-40043

• Order(s) appealed from: The district court’s January 15, 2025
oral denial of Bello’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal
and January 2, 2025 order denying motion to sever

• Appeal status: Appeal pending, no briefing schedule issued

4. U.S. v. Bello, No. 25-40073

• Order(s) appealed from: Various district court orders
denying in whole or in part Bello’s motions to suppress, to
dismiss the indictment, and for requested jury instructions

• Appeal status: Appellant’s brief filed on July 15, 2025. On
July 22, 2025, the Court suspended briefing pending a ruling
on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
4
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

5. U.S. v. Bello, No. 25-40162

• Orders appealed from: The district court’s order of January 6,
2025 denying one of Bello’s many motions to dismiss the
indictment

• Appeal status: Appeal pending; briefing notice issued August
6, 2025
C. The appeal of the final judgment
On August 5, 2025, Bello filed a notice of appeal of the final

judgment. On August 6, 2025, the Clerk of this Court entered that notice

of appeal in the docket of Appeal No. 25-40043. See Appeal No. 25-40043,
Dkt. No. 46.

ARGUMENT

This Court has jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and certain interlocutory orders not applicable here, 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The

Supreme Court “has long held that the policy of Congress embodied in

[section 1291] is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court

decisions which do not terminate the litigation[.]” United States v.

Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982). “[T]his policy is at its

strongest in the field of criminal law” because “[p]romptness in bringing a
criminal case to trial has become increasingly important as crime has

increased, court dockets have swelled, and detention facilities have become

overcrowded.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263-64 (1984). “Th[e]

5
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage

undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice,

particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases.” DiBella v. United

States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962).
As set forth above, Bello has filed five separate notices of appeal of

the district court’s interlocutory orders in his criminal case, four of which

remain pending. 1 On January 24, 2025, the district court sentenced Bello

and entered a judgment of conviction. On August 5, 2025, Bello filed a

notice of appeal of the judgment, which has been docketed in Appeal No.

25-40043.
“[A]ll interlocutory orders of the district court leading up to the

judgment merge into the final judgment and become appealable at that

time.” Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enterprises, LLC, 756 F.3d 875, 879 (5th Cir. 2014)
(cleaned up); see also 15B WRIGHT & MILLER, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3914.28 (2d ed.) (“Upon appeal from a final judgment

concluding the action, earlier summary dispositions merge in the
judgment and are reviewable.”). Bello will thus now have an opportunity

to challenge his conviction and sentence, and any interim decisions of the

district court, in Appeal No. 25-40043. He should be required to present all

1
On April 8, 2025, this Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss
Appeal No. 24-40751 for lack of jurisdiction.

6
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

of his claims relating to his criminal case in one brief in that appeal. See

United States v. Bailey, 512 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 1975) (noting “the long

standing statutory policy against piecemeal appeals”). To avoid piecemeal

litigation and promote efficiency and justice, the Court should dismiss the
rest of Bello’s pending appeals: Nos. 24-40839, 25-40073, and 25-40162. 2

Conclusion

The Court should dismiss this interlocutory appeal.

2
This is similar to what this Court did in In re Olamide Olatayo Bello, No. 25-
40214. Bello had filed five petitions for mandamus in this Court related to his criminal
case. The Court sua sponte consolidated all five actions and denied them all in one
order, noting that “Bello has an available appellate remedy to challenge the district
court’s jurisdiction, its pretrial orders, the jury verdict, and the underlying criminal
charges[.]” Unpublished Order at 2, No. 25-40214 (consolidating Nos. 25-40217, 25-
40222, 25-40334, 25-40346) (June 24, 2025).
7
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

Respectfully submitted,

Jay R. Combs
Acting United States Attorney
Eastern District of Texas

/s/ Bradley Visosky
Bradley Visosky
Assistant United States Attorney
101 E. Park Blvd., Suite 500
Plano, Texas 75074
(972) 509-1201

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Because Mr. Bello filed this appeal and his brief pro se, the
undersigned has not conferred with him.

/s/ Bradley Visosky
Bradley Visosky

8
Case: 24-40839 Document: 57 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On August 7, 2025, I will serve two copies of this motion on Mr.
Bellow by sending it to him by certified mail/return-receipt requested, at
the following address:

Olamide Olatayo Bello
Fannin County Jail
2389 Silo Road
Bonham, Texas 75418

/s/ Bradley Visosky
Bradley Visosky

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This motion complies with the length limits of Fed. R. App. P.
27(d)(2)(A). It contains 1,207 words, excluding the parts exempted.

2. This motion complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R.
App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6).
It was prepared using Microsoft Word in a proportionally spaced typeface
in 14-point size.

/s/ Bradley Visosky
Bradley Visosky

File and source

File: 57.pdf
Size: 192,970 bytes
SHA-256: e9ffbe5c3fbeabd4cc3976fedcdf42acea012b4537f4518e8b59173e4a121a08
Our copy: 57.pdf
Original: No public link identified.