Government's Omnibus Response to Pending Pretrial Motions — United States v. Bello (E.D. Tex., Dkt. 409)

Summary

Government's omnibus response, filed December 19, 2024 as Document 409 in United States v. Olamide Olatayo Bello, et al., No. 4:23-CR-136, in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. It answers a series of pretrial motions filed by Bello, taking them in order by docket entry number. The government asks the court to deny the motion to revoke the order revoking pretrial release (Docket Entry 284), calling its arguments mostly frivolous, and to deny the motion in limine (Docket Entry 285) as not yet ripe. For several motions to expedite it says denial is proper as moot because the court set a hearing for December 19, 2024. The signature block carries /s/ Sean J. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney.

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

Cite this document

“Government's Omnibus Response to Pending Pretrial Motions — United States v. Bello (E.D. Tex., Dkt. 409).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-e-d-tex-no-4-23-cr-00136-dkt-409-e-d-tex-a05eafbb7b/, SHA-256 41c9425798aafcde31b99024023af81a529d7f32ce8b126e4eda3d44341d4be2.

Full text

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
2337

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§ No. 4:23-CR-136
v. § Judges Mazzant/Davis
§
OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO, ET AL. §

GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT BELLO’S PRETRIAL MOTIONS

The government files this response to the pending pretrial motions Defendant

Bello filed.

1. Motion for Revocation of Pretrial Release Revocation or Amendment of the
Order of Pretrial Release Revocation (Docket Entry 284).

Bello moves the Court to revoke the order revoking his pretrial release. He raises

mostly frivolous arguments regarding the procedure of the revocation hearing or the

evidence the government presented at the hearing. He also complains about the length of

time he’s been detained pending trial. Of course, “[a] lengthy pretrial incarceration does

not inherently offend a defendant’s liberty interests.” United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d

201, 213 (5th Cir. 2007). Notably, the Court originally released Bello pending trial. Had

he abided by the conditions of his release, he would not be in jail today. Bello’s own

conduct is therefore the cause of his pretrial detention. See United States v. Burton, No.

98-20782, 2000 WL 1029169, at *15 (5th Cir. July 14, 2000).

United States Magistrate Judge Davis addresses Bello’s pretrial detention

argument in his December 12, 2024 Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”) (Docket

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 1
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
2338

Entry 380), addressing Docket Entry 283. This Court should deny Bello’s motion for the

reasons given in the R&R regarding the length of Bello’s pretrial detention and because

the balance of the arguments Bello raises in the instant motion are frivolous.

2. Motion in Limine (Docket Entry 285).

Bello first moves for an in limine ruling regarding “any fruits a result of search

and seizure of the defendant’s residence on June 21, 2023.” The Court has not yet ruled

on Bello’s motion to suppress this evidence, so the Court should deny the motion because

it is not yet ripe.

Bello next moves for an in limine ruling regarding “any statements and fruits as a

result of the accused controlled and manage business organizations which were located

and operated in McKinney, Texas.” The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

3. Motion to Unstrike All “Pro Se” Motions (Docket Entry 286).

Bello moves the Court to unstrike all pro se motions he filed while he was

represented by counsel. Bello has filed numerous motions in his pro se capacity since he

filed the instant motion. So the Court should deny this motion as moot.

4. Motion for Emergency Jurisdiction Hearing on Subject-Matter and Personal
Jurisdiction (Docket Entry 287).

Bello raised a complaint regarding the Court’s personal and subject-matter

jurisdiction in Docket Entry 283. Judge Davis concluded that the Court has both subject-

matter and personal jurisdiction in his R&R. The Court should deny this motion for the

same reasons.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 2
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
2339

5. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Docket Entry 288).

Bello moves for “an emergency evidentiary hearing.” In the motion, Bello does

not give a basis for his request or even identify the issue(s) he wants the Court to

consider. Given the Court’s impending hearing on December 19, 2024, the Court should

deny this motion as moot.

6. Motion for Emergency and Immediate Invocation or Application of Speedy
Trial Act (Docket Entry 289).

Trial is set for January 13, 2025. In the R&R, Judge Davis finds that Bello’s

speedy trial rights have not been violated. The Court should deny Bello’s motion for the

reasons given in the R&R.

7. Individual or Official Capacity Classification Hearing (Docket Entry 293).

Although the nature of the requested relief is not clear, Bello apparently complains

that he was “lumped together in an indictment.” The R&R addresses a similar argument,

and the Court should deny this motion for the same reasons given in the R&R.

8. Emergency Motion to Expedite Pending Pro Se Motions (Docket Entry 294).

Bello moves the Court to expedite its decisions on all of his pending pro se

motions. Because the Court has set all of Bello’s pending motions for hearing on

December 19, 2024, the Court should deny this motion as moot.

9. Emergency Motion to Expedite (Docket Entry 307).

Bello again moves the Court to expedite its decisions on all of his pending pro se

motions. Because the Court has set all of Bello’s pending motions for hearing on

December 19, 2024, the Court should deny this motion as moot.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 3
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
2340

10. Motion to Unstrike (Docket Entry 308).

Bello again moves the Court to unstrike all pro se motions he filed while he was

represented by counsel. Bello has filed numerous motions in his pro se capacity since he

filed the instant motion. So the Court should deny this motion as moot.

11. Emergency Motion to Revoke Pretrial Release Revocation on the Ground of
Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket Entry 309).

Bello moves the Court to revoke the Court’s order revoking his pretrial release.

The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

12. Motion for Speedy Trial (Docket Entry 310).

Bello request that his trial “be set for a date on or before January of 2025.” The

Court has set the trial to begin on January 13, 2025, so the Court should deny this motion

as moot.

13. Motion to Dismiss Indictment on the Ground of Pretrial Cruel and Unusual
Punishment (Docket Entry 311).

Bello contends that the indictment should be dismissed because of alleged

constitutional violations he’s suffered during his pretrial detention. Judge Davis

addresses similar arguments in his R&R. This Court should deny the motion for the same

reasons given in the R&R.

14. Emergency Motion to Withdraw CJA Philip A. Linder as Counsel for the
Defendant (Docket Entry 313).

Bello moves the Court to remove Mr. Linder as Bello’s counsel. Following a

Faretta hearing, the Court has allowed Bello to proceed pro se, with Mr. Linder serving

as stand-by counsel. The Court should deny this motion as moot.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 4
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
2341

15. Emergency Motion to Proceed in this Case “Representing Myself” (Docket
Entry 314).

Bello moves the Court to allow him to represent himself. Following a Faretta

hearing, the Court has allowed Bello to proceed pro se, with Mr. Linder serving as stand-

by counsel. The Court should deny this motion as moot.

16. Rule Go Motion for a Relief from All Final Orders (sic) (Docket Entry 317).

Bello raises several frivolous, non-cogent arguments in this filing. The Court

should deny it as frivolous.

17. Motion for Order of Designation of Record of Appeal (Docket Entry 319).

Bello apparently moves the Court to issue an order designating the record for

appeal. Because district courts do not enter such orders, the Court should deny this

motion.

18. Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry
321).

Bello moves the Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The

government defers to the Court for such a ruling.

19. Motion to be Tried Without a Jury (Docket Entry 322).

Bello requests to be tried without a jury. Bello was indicted with ten other alleged

co-conspirators, and two others are likely to proceed to trial with Bello. Unless they also

consent to be tried without a jury (which is unlikely), the Court should deny this motion.

However, in the event that the other indicted alleged co-conspirators plead guilty before

trial, then the government does not object to the Court holding a bench trial.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 5
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
2342

20. Eighth Amendment Motion (Docket Entry 323).

Bello again moves the Court to dismiss the indictment due to alleged

constitutional violations stemming from his pretrial detention. The R&R addresses

similar arguments, and the Court should deny the motion for the same reasons.

21. Motion for Unrestricted Access to Discovery (Docket Entry 324).

Bello apparently moves the Court to order the Fannin County Jail to allow him

unrestricted access to the discovery in his cell. The government opposes this request

because he already has reasonable access to the discovery in the jail library consistent

with jail policy. Moreover, some of the discovery contains third-party information that

cannot be disseminated through the jail. Allowing Bello to review the discovery in the

jail library strikes a balance between giving him the opportunity to review the discovery

while avoiding the threat of disseminating sensitive information inside the jail.

22. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 Motion (Docket Entry 328).

Bello moves the Court for an order dismissing the indictment under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3231, the statute vesting United States District Courts with federal criminal jurisdiction.

The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

23. Defect in the Indictment Motion Joining Two or More Offenses in the Same
Count (duplicity) Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(i) (Docket Entry 329).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment because it joins two or more

offenses in the same count. Judge Davis addresses a similar argument in his R&R,

concluding that the indictment is not impermissibly duplicitous. The Court should deny

the motion for the same reasons.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 6
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
2343

24. Defect in Indictment Motion Lack of Specificity Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(3)(B)(iii) (Docket Entry 330).

Bello complains that the indictment lacks specificity, but the particulars of his

argument are not clear. Because the First Superseding Indictment gives sufficient notice

of the charges against Bello and his co-defendants, the Court should deny this motion.

25. Defect In Indictment Motion Improper Joinder Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(3)(B)(iv) (Docket Entry 331).

Bello moves the Court for an order dismissing the indictment “on the ground of improper

joinder.” Bello is charged in the First Superseding Indictment along with his alleged co-

conspirators. The Court should deny this motion.

26. Defect in Indictment Motion Failure to State an Offense Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(3)(B)(v) (Docket Entry 332).

Bello moves the Court for an order dismissing the indictment for “failure to state

an offense.” The reasoning of Bello’s argument is not clear, but Judge Davis addresses a

similar argument regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings in his R&R. The Court

should deny this motion for the same reasons given in the R&R and because the motion is

frivolous.

27. Bail Revocation And Remission Motion (Docket Entry 333).

Bello again moves the Court for an order releasing him from pretrial detention.

The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

28. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Lack of the Essential Element (sic) (Docket
Entry 334).

Although the nature of his argument is not clear, Bello apparently complains about

the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment. Judge Davis addresses a similar

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 7
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
2344

argument in his R&R. The Court should deny this motion for those same reasons.

29. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Distruction (sic) of Exculpatory Evidence
(Docket Entry 335).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment “base on the ground of the

Government’s distruction of exculpatory evidence during the search warrant and seizure

(sic).” The government denies destroying any exculpatory evidence. The Court should

deny this motion.

30. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Unconstitutional Pre-Indictment Delay
(Docket Entry 336).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment on the ground of unconstitutional

pre-indictment delay. A grand jury indicted Bello less than five years following his

alleged criminal activity. The Court should deny this motion.

31. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Lack of Materiality (Docket Entry 337).

Bello moves this Court to dismiss the indictment “on the ground of lack of

materiality.” To the extent that Bello contends that either the Indictment or the First

Superseding Indictment fail to allege that the charged conspiracy involved false material

misrepresentations, he’s incorrect. The Court should deny this motion.

32. Emergency Motion to Expedite (Docket Entry 338).

Bello moves the Court to expedite its decisions on all pending pro se motions.

The Court has set a hearing on all pending motions for December 19, 2024, so the Court

should deny this motion as moot.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 8
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
2345

33. Motion to Compel Production of Pre-Trial Detention Punishment Discoveries
and Records (Docket Entry 339).

Bello apparently complains about his treatment during pretrial detention. The

relief he seeks is not available in the context of the instant criminal matter, so the Court

should deny this motion.

34. Constitutional Protected Right Motion (Docket Entry 340).

Although the nature of Bello’s complaint is unclear, he apparently complains

about his ability to represent himself in this case. The Court, following a Faretta hearing,

has allowed Bello to proceed pro se. So the Court should deny this motion.

35. Summary of Judgment Motion (Docket Entry 341).

Bello apparently moves the Court to grant summary judgment against the

government in this case. But summary judgment is not a remedy available in a criminal

matter. The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

36. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) Motion (Docket Entry 342).

The nature of Bello’s argument is not clear, but it seems as though he essentially

disputes the government’s allegations in the indictment. The Court should deny this

motion as frivolous.

37. Motion for Restrain Order on Agent Rennie and Associate (sic) (Docket
Entry 343).

Bello apparently moves the Court to restrain Agent Rennie and “his associate”

from coercing or threatening him. The government denies these allegations. The Court

should deny this motion.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 9
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
2346

38. Motion to Sanction the Government (Docket Entry 345).

Bello makes several allegations of government misconduct, all of which the

government denies. The Court should deny this motion.

39. Motion to Compel Private Investigator Discovery Update Hearing (Docket
Entry 346).

Bello moves the Court to compel the court-appointed private investigator to

provide Bello with all investigative materials. The government defers to the Court for a

ruling on this motion.

40. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Prosecutorial Misconduct and Procedural
Defect (Docket Entry 349).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment based “on the ground of

prosecutorial misconduct and procedural defect.” Again, Bello makes several

nonsensical complaints about the government’s investigation, all of which the

government denies were improper. The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

41. Motion to Dismiss Indictment—Distruction of Exculpatory Evidence (sic)
(Docket Entry 350).

Bello again moves the Court to dismiss the indictment based on “the ground of

distruction (sic) of exculpatory evidence.” Again, the government denies destroying any

exculpatory evidence. The Court should deny this motion.

42. Motion Requesting a Copy of Certificate of Service on Crim. ECF #310
(Docket Entry 351).

Bello moves the Court “for the production of certificate of service from the

Government.” The nature of the requested relief is not clear. The Court should deny this

motion.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 10
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
2347

43. Motion for Bill of Particulars in Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) (sic)
(Docket Entry 355).

The nature of Bello’s argument is not clear, although he seemingly contends that

the allegations in the indictment are not sufficiently specific. The Court should deny this

motion as frivolous.

44. Emergency Motion to Expedite (Docket Entry 356).

Bello again moves the Court to expedite its decision on all pending pro se

motions. The Court has set all pending pro se motions for hearing on December 19,

2024. The Court should deny this motion as moot.

45. Motion to Unstrike Proposed Jury Instruction and to Append Additional
Jury Instruction (Docket Entry 358).

Bello moves the Court to unstrike proposed jury instructions at docket entry 173

and to “append the attached proposed jury instruction.” The Court has ordered the parties

to confer on the proposed jury instructions before trial. The government intends to

circulate proposed jury instructions with the defendant and other co-defendants at the

appointed time. The defendant, along with the remaining parties, will file proposed jury

instructions after conferencing. The Court should deny this motion.

46. Emergency Motion for Severance (Docket Entry 367).

Bello moves the Court to sever his trial from that of his alleged co-conspirators

because he could ostensibly provide exculpatory evidence at their trials. As a general

rule, persons indicted together should be tried together, especially in conspiracy cases.

United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1045 (5th Cir. 1994). To prevail on his claim that a

separate trial is necessary to obtain exculpatory evidence, Bello must show: “(1) a bona

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 11
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
2348

fide need for the testimony; (2) the substance of the testimony; (3) its exculpatory nature

and effect; [and] (4) that the co-defendant would in fact testify if severance were

granted.” United States v. Villarreal, 963 F.2d 725, 732 (5th Cir.1992). Under that test,

without an affidavit from the co-defendant himself or other similar proof, “conclusory

allegation[s]” that a co-defendant would testify and what he or she would testify about is

not sufficient. United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 583 & n. 10 (5th Cir.1993) (listing

precedent); United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1047 (5th Cir.1994). Bello can make

none of the showings for a severance required by the Fifth Circuit. The Court should

deny this motion.

47. Emergency Motion for Bill of Particular (Docket Entry 368).

Bello again complains about the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment.

Judge Davis considered similar arguments in his R&R and rejected them all. The Court

should deny this motion for the same reasons.

48. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on the Ground of Faretta Right Violation
(Docket Entry 371).

The nature of Bello’s complaint raised in this motion is not clear. To the extent he

complains about not being permitted to represent himself, the motion should be denied as

moot because the Court has permitted Bello to proceed pro se following a Faretta

hearing. To the extent Bello complains about the substance or procedure of that hearing,

his complaint is too vague to afford him any relief. The Court should deny this motion.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 12
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
2349

49. Motion to Dismiss Indictment on the Ground of Speedy Trial Violation
(Docket Entry 372).

Bello moves to dismiss the indictment “on the ground of the violation of the

speedy trial clause of the sixth amendment.” Judge Davis considered—and rejected—a

similar argument in his R&R. The Court should deny this motion for the same reasons.

50. Motion for an Order Sticken (sic) Docket 325 and Reversal of an Order
Granting Docket 325 on the Ground of Violation of Local Rules CV-5(c)
(Docket Entry 373).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment and reverse the order revoking his

pretrial release. The Court should deny this motion as frivolous.

51. Motion to Correct the Number of Pretrial Continuous Detention Days
(Docket Entry 374).

By way of motion, Bello attempts to correct his own error in calculating the

number of days he’s been detained. Such a filing requires no ruling by the Court.

52. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on the Ground of Clerk Prejudice
filings/docketing (Docket Entry 375).

Bello moves the Court to dismiss the indictment apparently due to the manner in

which the Clerk’s Office has handled his submissions. The Court should deny this

motion as frivolous.

53. Emergency Motion for Immediate Dismissal of the Indictment for Wanting
Jurisdiction, Alternatively, Immediate Release from Custody, Stay All
Proceedings and Mute (sic) All Orders and Actions Pending Court Decision
on “Plea to Jurisdiction” (Docket Entry 382).

Bello again challenges this Court’s Article III jurisdiction. The Court should deny

this motion as frivolous.

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 13
Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-BD Document 409 Filed 12/19/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
2350

54. Motion to Compel Access to Law Library (Docket Entry 383).

Bello moves the Court to compel the Fannin County Jail to provide him with a

“tablet” (presumably an electronic device) for him to use to prepare for trial. The Court

should deny this motion as frivolous.

Respectfully Submitted,

DAMIEN M. DIGGS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Sean J. Taylor
SEAN J. TAYLOR
Assistant United States Attorney
Texas Bar No. 24075147
600 East Taylor Street, Suite 2000
Sherman, Texas 75090
(903) 868-9454 (main)
sean.taylor@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed via electronic
filing to defense counsel on December 19, 2024. The government also mailed
a copy of the foregoing to Bello at the Fannin County Jail and will hand
deliver a copy to him before the Court’s hearing on December 19, 2024.

/s/ Sean J. Taylor
SEAN J. TAYLOR
Assistant United States Attorney

Government’s Omnibus Response to Bello’s Pretrial Motions - Page 14

File and source

File: 409.pdf
Size: 203,605 bytes
SHA-256: 41c9425798aafcde31b99024023af81a529d7f32ce8b126e4eda3d44341d4be2
Our copy: 409.pdf
Original: No public link identified.